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

[Dan123]

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.

Many regular family practice clinics can do minor surgical procedures during the same appointment if they know what you’re coming in for. Even when they can’t it’s logistical, not legal.

What you’re saying is that an abortion be treated as a trip to the supermarket: you buy your stuff and come back

I’m not ‘saying’ anything of the sort, I’m just pointing out that the headline is disingenuous and misleading, something I’d expect people would want to avoid. Are you saying the path to reducing or eliminating abortions includes misunderstanding or misleading people about the other side’s arguments? I wouldn’t expect so.

 

[Pattylt]

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.

It seems it isn’t required by the state after all. I have no problem I’d the doctor performs one because he needs that information. I was just appalled that the state could require it!

I have a feeling that initially, that’s what they tried to do but I’m sure reasonable heads prevailed and realized you can’t force a medical procedure on a person by the state.

How could the enforce her watching it anyway. If she closes her eyes would they pry them open? Sounds ridiculous because it is. Allowing the choice is fine and I hope it helps women to understand exactly what they’re doing. If it’s very early…which most are…it doesn’t look like much yet anyway.

 

[Anicette]

If it’s very early…which most are…it doesn’t look like much yet anyway.

What do you mean?

If the pregnancy is too early nothing can be shown on ultrasound anyway…

 

[Pattylt]

What do you mean?

If the pregnancy is too early nothing can be shown on ultrasound anyway…

Exactly. Most abortions take place early in the pregnancy when there is little to see on an ultrasound. So if they required one or even offered it and the woman agreed to it, there isn’t much of anything to actually see.

It’s the size of a sweet pea at six weeks!

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

 

[Anicette]

He still have a tail, but members, a heartbeat, and already mooves a lot!

 

[goout]

Dan123:

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

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.

yes but abortion supports the deification of sexual license and radical individual autonomy. So yea, we can’t have restrictions of license and autonomy. That would be very intolerant. (sarcasm)

 

[Jen95]

Anicette:

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.

It seems it isn’t required by the state after all. I have no problem I’d the doctor performs one because he needs that information. I was just appalled that the state could require it!

I have a feeling that initially, that’s what they tried to do but I’m sure reasonable heads prevailed and realized you can’t force a medical procedure on a person by the state.

How could the enforce her watching it anyway. If she closes her eyes would they pry them open? Sounds ridiculous because it is. Allowing the choice is fine and I hope it helps women to understand exactly what they’re doing. If it’s very early…which most are…it doesn’t look like much yet anyway.

Well, it’s not like the state is forcing ultrasounds on completely random people.
I guess it seems a little ironic that you are objecting to a medical procedure being done on someone who is…wait for it…at a provider, for a medical procedure.

 

[Pattylt]

I guess it seems a little ironic that you are objecting to a medical procedure being done on someone who is…wait for it…at a provider, for a medical procedure.

If you have no problem with the state mandating a medical procedure on you…not your doctor mandating it…the state…I guess I’ll accept your opinion. For me, the state has no business mandating a medical procedure on me. The fact that it’s an abortion is completely beside the point.

 

[Anicette]

Well, it’s not like the state is forcing ultrasounds on completely random people.

Yes I agree with your point.

I guess it seems a little ironic that you are objecting to a medical procedure being done on someone who is…wait for it…at a provider, for a medical procedure.

Yes, it seems a sad irony, because the woman will have an abortion, that is not a medical procedure like others, and she don’t have to have one if she don’t want it.

But it is a slippery slope, so I diagree with what you have textually write, which is we can force a medical procedure on someone because he comes to another medical procedure (yes, not the same).

If we can force an ultrasound on a woman who wants an abortion, we can force it on a pregnant woman who don’t ask for an abortion. We can force it on a non pregnant woman at any medical appointment, and as the logic is escalading we can force a medical procedure to anyone, man, woman, child as long as he mets a medical professional, or even on random people for any reasons.

We have to be very careful on what we force on someone who do something that we are objecting. because it can back to us, or any innocent person day or another, or any reason.

Because the society who has legalized abortion does not make a distinction between the moral and immoral actions in medical field.

And we can add, if we wish to be truly moral, (which is difficult, even for me) that it is not because someone make something objectiveley wrong or criminal that we have to treat him as if he has no dignity anymore.

 

[Jen95]

Jen95:

I guess it seems a little ironic that you are objecting to a medical procedure being done on someone who is…wait for it…at a provider, for a medical procedure.

If you have no problem with the state mandating a medical procedure on you…not your doctor mandating it…the state…I guess I’ll accept your opinion. For me, the state has no business mandating a medical procedure on me. The fact that it’s an abortion is completely beside the point.

Guess what? When my babies were born, there were all kinds of heel stick medical tests, as well as a hearing test “required by the state”. For all babies born in that state! Quel horreur!

Not to mention all the vaccines required by governments! Aren’t those medical procedures required by the state?

 

[Pattylt]

Guess what? When my babies were born, there were all kinds of heel stick medical tests, as well as a hearing test “required by the state”. For all babies born in that state! Quel horreur!

I agree. I bet you signed a release to permit those tests, too. If you are in favor of government requiring medically unnecessary…and it is unnecessary…then ok. I don’t agree with you. I just don’t like the government involving itself in medical decisions. There is no way to force the mother to look anyway and I just see it as pointless. There are better ways to spend our government money to prevent abortions. Do you have any statistics on how many women changed their minds after having an ultrasound? I’ve never seen any and have no idea if the numbers are large or small. If the are large, I could be persuaded that it’s a more useful tool. Until then I’ll go with my gut instinct that it’s useless.

 

[Anicette]

Do you have any statistics on how many women changed their minds after having an ultrasound? I’ve never seen any and have no idea if the numbers are large or small. If the are large, I could be persuaded that it’s a more useful tool. Until then I’ll go with my gut instinct that it’s useless.

According to the article post above, 78% of women choose to keep their baby after seeing the ultrasound of their baby. the reference is this article: 4. Adam Cohen“The Next Abortion Battleground: Fetal Heartbeats” Time Ideas October 17, 2011

I looked into this reference now…
“According to Bachmann, a poll by Focus on the Family, a group opposed to abortion, found that when women who were undecided about whether to end a pregnancy were shown an ultrasound of the fetus, 78% did not have the abortion.”

Anti-abortion groups plan next attack on Roe v Wade with the "heartbeat" bill | TIME.com

So the reference is a poll by Focus on the family quoted by Michele Bachman… (I have not seen this poll, so all we have is an indirect source who is poll by an anti abortion association quoted by an anti abortion politician…

Is someone can enlight us more with the reference to the poll, please?

 

[Jen95]

78%.
That’s huge, wouldn’t you say?
@Pattylt?

 

[esieffe]

Would someone please explain to me how Planned Parenthood can portray themselves as “pro-woman” when they fight against informed consent?

Is this a rhetorical question? PP is a pro-money organization at it’s best. At worst it is a temple to the beast.
I have no idea aside from some screenings what services PP has to offer other than abortion. Some might point to the fact that I don’t and cry foul. But really, it makes no difference what they offer when these places amount to Birkenau for babies. Millions of babies. How can that be pro anything, least of all women.

PP and everyone else knows that if you see an ultrasound, that is either going to change the mother’s mind, or give her fuel for a lifetime of future nightmares… but maybe leading to true repentance.

My heart weeps for all who are touched by this. This touched my life when I was young. I won’t go into the specifics but it is heart wrenching. I am truly surprised there are not more resources for people affected by this than there are.

I pray with all I have to God with the intercession of all the Angels and the Saints, that PP loses this suit.

 

[Pattylt]

Yes, that’s a huge number of undecided women. These aren’t women at an abortion clinic who have decided, however. It’s a totally different group but it’s very encouraging, I won’t deny that. I’d like to know where these women were polled from. That’s an important piece of information.

Jen, I realize that you seem to be in favor of forced ultrasounds. I still am not.

 

[Elf01]

Jen, I realize that you seem to be in favor of forced ultrasounds. I still am not.

My understanding is that one is done anyway to determine fetal age, the woman would just have to see it.

 

[Mac]

Planned parenthood is PURE evil. They want to kill babies. Anything that stands between them and their lust for baby murder must be destroyed.

These people are not reasonable , they dont care about women , dont care about men. They simply want to kill babies and want you and me to pay for it.

 

[Anicette]

The focus on the family ultrasound programm:

Option Ultrasound Program - Focus on the Family

Church Groups Turn to Sonogram to Turn Women From Abortions - The New York Times

 

[Servant31]

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.

In my state they were working towards ultrasound legislation this year. The bill proposed to have the ultrasound not only performed, but visible and audible(Heartbeat) by the WOMAN herself. They were doing ultrasounds to confirm the developmental age of the child, but women weren’t being shown the video/audio.