Planned Parenthood Sues to Stop Women From Seeing Ultrasounds of Their Babies Before Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1cthlctrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1cthlctrth

Guest

The abortion business is criticizing an Iowa bill that ensures abortion facilities give women the opportunity to see their unborn babies on an ultrasound and hear their baby’s heartbeat at least 24 hours prior to the abortion. In addition, Iowa requires abortion facilities to provide women with information about abortion risks and resources available for parenting and adoption, and to confirm in writing that women received it.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland announced Tuesday that it had filed suit to block the July 1 implementation of the bill.

Governor Reynolds, who is pro-life, has appointed four Supreme Court justices since 2018 giving pro-life advocates hope the state Supreme Court is more open to pro-life laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld similar legislation in the past.

“We always look for pathways that we can advance the pro-life movement,” said House Human Resource Committee Chairwoman Shannon Lundgren, R-Peosta, Sioux City Journal reports. “24 hours is not an unreasonable amount of time to think about a decision that impacts more than just one life.”
Informed consent laws help protect unborn babies from abortion, and the abortion industry knows it. Research indicates that when women see ultrasound images of their unborn babies, they are more likely to choose life.

Would someone please explain to me how Planned Parenthood can portray themselves as “pro-woman” when they fight against informed consent?
 
1cthlctrth said:
Would someone please explain to me how Planned Parenthood can portray themselves as “pro-woman” when they fight against informed consent?
Click to expand...
I can call myself anything I wish–but that doesn’t mean I really am what I call myself.

We need to be careful.
 
Just want to make sure I understand this. A woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body except to be able to see what’s inside it?
 
1cthlctrth said:
The abortion business is criticizing an Iowa bill that ensures abortion facilities give women the opportunity to see their unborn babies on an ultrasound and hear their baby’s heartbeat at least 24 hours prior to the abortion
Click to expand...
Why is this controversial?
 
adamhovey1988 said:
Why is this controversial?
Click to expand...
It’s not. The objection to the bill is the mandatory waiting period that can place a burden on those with limited time they can get off work or other aspects such as disability or lack of transportation which can make going for two appointments more difficult. The headline is disingenuous.
 
1cthlctrth said:
The abortion business is criticizing an Iowa bill that ensures abortion facilities give women the opportunity to see their unborn babies on an ultrasound and hear their baby’s heartbeat
Click to expand...
Does this law require that the mother sees / be shown these things or just be offered an opportunity that they can simply decline?
 
From what I gather:

An ultrasound is required with a 24hr waiting period.
 
Oh well, that kind of explains why the pro-abortion lobby would oppose.
 
TC3033 said:
An ultrasound is required with a 24hr waiting period.
Click to expand...
So, they can force a medical procedure that the woman may not want performed? I do have a problem with that. Why not just force all women to take birth control? Why not force men to get vasectomies? What right does the state have to force any medical procedure on a person that doesn’t want one?

If she is offered and can accept or decline, I have no problem with that. It’s the requirement that a big issue to me. This isn’t the doctor requiring it, it’s the state!
 
This issue has been going around for years.

I always think of the Cowboy Code that you didn’t shoot somebody in the back, but faced the person you were about to kill.
 
I have looked for the text of the bill/amendment to the bill that this is based on but can’t find it. This was in a news article from the state. So it appears they have to offer them the option of ultrasound and heartbeat but not mandatory.

The bill requires women to wait at least 24 hours before going through with an abortion, according to CBS 2 Iowa. It also ensures abortion facilities give women the opportunity to see their unborn babies on an ultrasound and hear their baby’s heartbeat. In addition, it requires abortion facilities to provide women with information about abortion risks and resources available for parenting and adoption, and to confirm in writing that women received it.
 

So why do abortion providers avoid showing ultrasound images to women? Perhaps this is because up to 78% of women to see an ultrasound of their babies choose not to have abortions.

Here’s a story from one crisis pregnancy center worker in New Jersey. A woman (we’ll call her Gina) had been in the waiting room of the crisis pregnancy center while several of her friends encouraged her to keep the baby. When she came in for the appointment, however, she said:
No one can change my mind about getting an abortion! Not my friends in the waiting room and not that girl who just came in, and definitely not you.

The worker relates:
“I let Gina know that was not my intention to force her not to abort but rather to present her with her options so she could make the best, most well-informed decision.”

Gina and I met for about an hour and it was such a pleasant time. I got to know her and her family dynamics, life objectives, and relationship with the father of her baby. I reviewed information on abortion with her and invited her to listen as I discussed the options of parenting and adoption so that she could truly make the best decision for herself. She welcomed the opportunity and afterwards thanked me for helping her to think about the pregnancy from other perspectives. But even after our time together, Gina was firm in decision to abort.

Then Gina had an ultrasound, and it was life changing!
Immediately after looking at the monitor, Gina looked at our nurse and me and said, “Yo, that’s it! That’s my baby!” (This was the first time she identified “it” as a baby.) “I can do this!” It was such a turn of events…”

Gina carried the pregnancy to term and kept her child.
 
Pattylt said:
So, they can force a medical procedure that the woman may not want performed?
Click to expand...
Don’t shoot the messenger…

I couldn’t find the actual bill, I was just going off what I saw linked in the article above (which linked to another article on LifeNews) so there could be some sensationalism in it. TBH, I can’t find where I read that, so It’s possible I misread it.
 
Dan123 said:
lace a burden on those with limited time they can get off work or other aspects such as disability or lack of transportation which can make going for two appointments more difficult
Click to expand...
I can’t think of a single medical surgical procedure that doesn’t require at least two visits to a medical professional including fast growing, life threatening cancer.
 
Given the momentous decision this hardly seems a forceful objection. What you’re saying is that an abortion be treated as a trip to the supermarket: you buy your stuff and come back. This is not done in any other elective medical procedure. There is a careful preparation with consultations, exams, etc. Why should abortion be any different? It shouldn’t.
 
The news text suggest that the “mother be given the opportunity”. So this means that the scanning procedure is optional, while the waiting period is not. This strikes me as reasonable and proportionate in a context where abortion is legal.
 
Our KC council was in the process of obtaining funding for a mobile ultrasound machine for the local pregnancy center before all this COVID stuff hit.

That has put the parking brake on our fund raising and any movement forward on the ultrasound. But what your article mentioned is exactly the reason the KC’s have this program. Once a woman realizes that is a child, she is much more likely to decide to have the baby instead of aborting it.
 
Well, from what i read from the article, it is not only showing the ultrasound, even if it is the most controversial think, because it can make a woman to feel guilty about aborting.

“The group’s lawsuit in Johnson County District Court seeks an injunction against a bill legislators passed June 14, which says a woman could not have an abortion for at least 24 hours after an initial appointment.”

that’s seems pretty normal procedure. It also takes at least 2 appointments in France before to have the abortion appointement make an abortion. To explain the procedures possibles given the supposed state a pregnancy. An ultrasound is always a mandate to confirm the state of the pregnancy, to know if she is still in the first trimester (no abortion on demand is possible after) and to choose the method of abortion.

We had an abortion delay reflexion before it was suppressed in 2016. (It was more than 24 hours!). Because it was considered that since the woman had make her choice any delay is unbearable.

What an sad irony, because if we buy a house we have a mandate delay of 7 days to change our minds…

The patient is not supposed to see or heard the ultrasound, but some doctors don’t hesite to show it, and pro choice people critized them as unkind and paternalistic. Normally a woman cannot have access to her abortions clichés or reports.

In 2/3 of european countries where abortion is legal, there is no abortion delay.

“In addition, Iowa requires abortion facilities to provide women with information about abortion risks and resources available for parenting and adoption, and to confirm in writing that women received it.”

Before it was suppressed too, every woman received a handbook of answers of what aids a pergannt woman can received.
But adoption is never presented as an alternative. because it would be a way to encourage the abandonement of children. If the woman is too advance in her pregnancy, PP staff can oriented the woman to it among others alternatives such as go in another country.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
So, they can force a medical procedure that the woman may not want performed?
Click to expand...
Well, I would answer it depends if the ultrasound was already a part of the procedure for the reason to evaluate the pregnancy’s stage for exemple, or if it an procedure that is adding to all.

And yes, I agree that an early pregnancy ultrasound is an invasive procedure to to the way it is done.

I supposed that the woman is not mandate to show the screen (how can we forced her?) and the doctor can make the sound of the heartbeat silent if the woman asked him before?

But in conclusion, it is an abortion, it is definitive and serious, and no woman is mandate to have an abortion, thanksfully.
It is normal that a woman have impartial information to understand what her “embryo” is, at her stage of pregnancy, and that it is not a cluster of cells as many partisans tell it in the past…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top