The Florida house has passed HB 1497 which would require a woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion, as well as undergoing an ultrasound. A woman may decline to view the ultrasound images by signing off on an official form. In reading a recent article on the bill, I was struck by what an opponent of the bill had said.



This comment was made by Rep. Kelly Skidmore.

Questions for debate:

1.)Does the bill suggest as Rep. Skidmore maintains, that women do not think long and hard over their decision to have an abortion? Is it the role of the state to ensure that they do?

2.)How does this bill mesh with the Roe V. Wade decision? How does it follow it or not using the Court's decision?

3.)Will this bill prove to be an "undue burden" upon a woman's "right" to have an abortion?

You're missing what Skidmore is saying. Skidmore is saying that women are already thingking long and hard about this decision. It's not a flip decision they are making.

The role of the state is not to ensure people make good decisons.


It has nothing to do with Roe v Wade.


This is an interesting question. I wonder if 24 hours makes a whit of difference. The ultra sound seems like something a religious group thought up. It will be very intersting to see how this law is attacked.

It seems the ProLifers have come up with some ingenious ways to seep their mores into this as law.

Does the bill suggest as Rep. Skidmore maintains, that women do not think long and hard over their decision to have an abortion?
Yes. Although Texas, being Texas, outdoes every state. A bill by Dan Patrick would pay women $500 for choosing adoption over abortion. If the good senator offered $2,000...

Is it the role of the state to ensure that they do?
It's the role of the state to make abortion legal or illegal, not make you feel guilty about exercising your right (if the state makes abortion legal). Does any state make you watch school shooting footage before buying a handgun?

How does this bill mesh with the Roe V. Wade decision? How does it follow it or not using the Court's decision?
It is already constitutional per Casey. The trimester scheme no longer applies, and states can pass any ridiculous restrictions they want as long as restrictions don't present an undue burden.

Will this bill prove to be an "undue burden" upon a woman's "right" to have an abortion?
Nope. Grownup legislatures get to treat women like waffling little girls.

BA is correct, you have misinterpreted this comment. The Representative is against the bill. Interestingly, he is a Republican against the bill.

This is a nausiating bill: it makes every effort to make the woman 'feel bad' about her decision: since when is this the right of the government? Even abortion opponents of abortion should be unhappy about this bill, it is the worst form of attempting to legislate morality. Should we force every gun purchaser to watch film images of gunshot victims?

You are also FORCING a woman to undergo an unecessary medical proceedure for no reason apart from to make her 'feel bad'. Ultrasounds are not terribly invasive, but who the hell is the state government to compel women to have one? I hope those on the far right not obsessed with winnowing away abortion rights are noticing the kind of precident that is being set for government interference in the lives of people, and compelling mecial proceedures for no medical reason.

2.)How does this bill mesh with the Roe V. Wade decision? How does it follow it or not using the Court's decision?

No, its just a shallow attempt on the part of a small segment of the population to legislate guilt based on foolish preconceptions that have no accuracy, and chip away at abortion rights.

3.)Will this bill prove to be an "undue burden" upon a woman's "right" to have an abortion?

In specific? No. But the next useless bill they pass will chip away a bit more, and the precident for compelling NON-MEDICALLY-USEFUL medical proceedures on people has now been set.



Hey, in Florida in 2005 there were 92,513 abortions, and asuming it continues the trend of about 2% increase each year, thats getting close to 100,000 forced ultrasounds women will have to undergo.

Does the state of Florida really have so many medical professionals with nothing to do, and so many idle ultrasounds lying around that they can take the additional 100,000 or so per year easily? I assume the State is picking up the bill for these forced ultrasounds? At about $250+ dollars a shot, there is $25 million dollars a year the state of Florida just spent so they can try and make women feel 'bad' about their decisions. I wonder how many meals that $25 million dollars would provide for Florida's homeless?

Nausiating.

I think you both misinterpreted Nebraska. I think Nebraska knows Skidmore is against the bill. The very first debate question doesn't ask us about Skidmore's actual beliefs; it asks us about her sarcasm towards the bill.


You can agree with a shocking observation.

By the way, just by the insight offered in Skidmore's comment I would wager the Republican representative from Florida is a woman. Maybe that makes the Republican's opposition to the bill less interesting. Never mind. Kelly Skidmore is a Democrat. But I was right about her being female.

I wish to know who pays? Does anyone have this info?

After scanning both versions of the bill and not being able to find mention of an ultrasound I went back to Nebraska's article and another article. If you read carefully you realize the House is debating the ultrasound amendment. They need to vote up or down before the end of the legislative session on May 4th. The 24 hour waiting period looks like a done deal, however.

Naturally the representatives who want to push the ultrasound amendment through didn't discuss who would pay for the ultrasounds. My guess is they'll pass it on to clinics, which will pass the cost on to women, which will delay poor women in getting the abortion assuming women won't waive the ultrasound and clinics don't need to increase equipment/trained personnel.

From my reading it seems that the ultrasound must happen but the woman can decline viewing the results? What a joke that exception is.

I am just reliving my own experiences having ultrasounds, and it is a personal moment. Takes awhile, small chat is always made, they always talk about what they are seeing and the screen can easily be pointed in your viewing direction. How can they opt out of the viewing? The viewing occurs right in front of them! I would imagine some "volunteer group" offering up their services to give these mandatory ultrasounds freely.

Okay, according to various amendments under Engrossed 1 and Committee Substitute 1, I gather

a) Medicare would foot the bill.
b) If the ultrasound is accepted the health care provider must explain a lot of things (probably like your scenario).
b) On top of filling out the waiver the woman needs to indicate she did not decline the ultrasound due to influence from a third party. Very thoughtful. Possible censorship issue?
c) Victims of "rape, incest, domestic violence, or human trafficking or for women who have a serious medical 24 condition necessitating the abortion" don't need to waive from the getgo. Extremely thoughtful. How will the state correlate the information when, while the state is free to press charges against people it believes has broken the law, women aren't compelled to report all of the above by law? Underage girls already need judicial bypass, so incest/rape would probably be discovered. Domestic violence could be reported, but bruises go away; vaginal tearing heals in cases of rape. Tell you I'm here illegally? No way. How would you enforce this? We don't have the finalized bill but I think enforcing these regulations will take more legislation down the line, and we'll have to revisit abortion again.


I want to believe that these kinds of bills are really about the fetus and we are dealing with True Believers. I shouldn't bother after reading Mrs. P's military story about the "negligent mother". The agent in the abortion/reproductive debate is always the woman but pro-lifers insist the agent they're concerned with is the fetus. As if it could be.

1.)Does the bill suggest as Rep. Skidmore maintains, that women do not think long and hard over their decision to have an abortion? Is it the role of the state to ensure that they do?

Yes, the Florida legislature is saying exactly that women don't think before having an abortion. It is a slap to all women's faces, and I'm not surprised. We are talking about Florida, after all. Has to be the heat. Up here it's the altitude, although I think most of the flatlanders have left. Bad winter. Wildfires.

Yeah, let's have the government really nanny us. I suppose it makes some form of sense for Florida, as they keep electing Republicans. Again, it's the heat, I am certain of it, having been to Orlando in July. Once. It's living in a bubble of AC, and I bet that wears on you over the years.

What might be next? Well, whatever it might be for Florida, it will tie into abortion and/or sex. Forget about gun regulation. Yep, waiting periods and training don't work for guns, but by gosh that will work for abortions! And, as one would expect with this kind of mentality, forget about advances in contraception. It's all about punitive measure against those people who, by their own actions, have gotten into a mess.

That in turn goes to a basic philosophical question in political science, and it has to do with getting people to behave the way the government wants us to behave. You can make abortion illegal, but that pushes it into the street. So, we figured out that putting abortion into the clinic is safer for the mother. Then some of us got upset about killing all those babies, which happened anyway, but instead of funding greater R&D into contraception and funding real sex education, along comes this stuff.

2.)How does this bill mesh with the Roe V. Wade decision? How does it follow it or not using the Court's decision?

This bill grinds the gears of the Court's decisions. It's a sloppy double-clutch made by people who on one side of the face complain about Medicare and on the other side desire to waste the funds on useless procedures. People with real health problems need the ultrasound but go without because it's an expensive thing, and we don't have decent health care for anyone who has to be concerned about ringing up big medical bills.

3.)Will this bill prove to be an "undue burden" upon a woman's "right" to have an abortion?

No, but it is a big waste of our tax dollars. It's growing government intrusion into our private lives, specifically women in this case. This will definitely help ultrasound manufactures get a fatter bottom line, and I have to wonder how much the health care lobby had to do with the bill's passage.

From what I understand, about 14 states have waiting periods. Apparently those 14 states are all wrong too? My opinion is that, apparently along with millions of other Americans, abortion is a HUGE decision. It ends a possible (if not very likely) life. T Ball, birthday parties, weddings, college graduations, etc are all going down the tubes... no pun intended.

Also- most abortion clinics probably already have an ultrasound and/or access to one. I sincerely doubt that ultrasound companies will benefit significantly.

It earnestly has nothing to do with the government attempting to persuade behavior, but to do with a large portion of Americans believing that abortion is killing babies.

I find it OUTLANDISH that people get up in arms about waiting a couple of days to terminate a pregnancy. Inconvenience the mother for a couple of days while the baby doesn't get to see light of day?

Yup.

Please Aevans, you may have forgotten, but according to the Supreme court of the United States abortion is LEGAL. Furthermore, the fact that abortion is legal is perfectly in line with the wishes of the MAJORITY of Americans. Those two points are really quite important.



Yes, and according to the law and the majority of Americans, they are wrong. Yet that does not stop them from implementing every imaginable sneaky legislation in the way of abortions. This is just one of the more heinous.



Yes, it is. And yet you somehow believe that those women undergoing abortions DON'T think so? You think the law needs to be invoked to make them feel guilty about OBEYING THE LAW? Because lest you forget, abortions are legal.




And I find it heinous to force a woman to under go a non-medically necessary medial proceedure just so you can try to make her feel guilty about her decision to do something entirely legal. I think ANY time the state compels medical proceedures for non-medical reasons you have crossed a horrifying line. And worse, this bill serves NO PURPOSE, except to salve those who don't like the fact that their view is a minority one, and want to put as many piddling little legislative nuisance blocks in the way of women obeying the law.

It's cheap, its tawdry, it sets a horrifying precident and it costs a LOT of money and a LOT of time of overtaxed medical professionals to accomplish NOTHING.

I agree one hundred percent with this. However, I'm not so sure that is the case here. In order to perform an abortion, the gestational age would have to be established. I don't think there is an alternative to an ultrasound for that purpose. Dates for menstruation and/or ovulation tend to be pretty inaccurate even if the woman remembers the exact date (and she might not be entirely truthful...it is the physician's culpability in such a case). I'm fairly certain that ultrasounds are obligatory anyway, because if they aren't the physician would be potentially crossing the legal limits of a pregnancy term.

I think this is likely more a way for politicians to score political points than any real change in policy.

Amazing how the dedication to education and informed consent goes out the window when abortion is the topic.

1.)Does the bill suggest as Rep. Skidmore maintains, that women do not think long and hard over their decision to have an abortion? Is it the role of the state to ensure that they do?
No, it suggests that women (oh, let's not forget the fathers as well) may or may not think long and hard, but that the vast majority do so in ignorance. Think long and hard all you want about whether or not to buy a specific house, but if you don't know the cost, all your thinking is wasted.

2.)How does this bill mesh with the Roe V. Wade decision? How does it follow it or not using the Court's decision?
As it doesn't place an "undue burden", (unless you think education is an undue burden?), it doesn't conflict at all.

3.)Will this bill prove to be an "undue burden" upon a woman's "right" to have an abortion?
No, and the ultrasound will likely save some women's lives as well.

In Florida ultrasounds are mandatory in second and third trimesters. I assume third trimester ultrasounds are rare and would have to do with some health concern for the mother or in the case of an abnormal fetus that could complicate the abortion. I can see the need for an ultrasound in a second trimester because as you say, gestation periods are tricky and a doctor would need to make an educated guess in order for him to recommend a D&C or D&E abortion (well, before SCOTUS upheld the ban, anyway). But do they really need to perform an ultrasound in the first trimester? Isn't it... well, obvious?

1.)Does the bill suggest as Rep. Skidmore maintains, that women do not think long and hard over their decision to have an abortion? Is it the role of the state to ensure that they do?

I think in many cases, women do not think long or hard about what they are really doing.

I find it laughable that the very people who claim that pro-lifers treat women like children are claiming that women are too weak to actually take a look at what they have chosen and then follow through with their decision.

This quote in the WaPost sums it up pretty well:



The state is clearly allowed to regulate abortion. This is well within bounds.

2.)How does this bill mesh with the Roe V. Wade decision? How does it follow it or not using the Court's decision?

Well, according to Casey, Roe set the standard that the states could:



3.)Will this bill prove to be an "undue burden" upon a woman's "right" to have an abortion?

Per Casey, simply trying to pursuade a woman to choose childbirth does not invalidate her rights.

I don't think the difference between 13 weeks and 5 is necessarily obvious at all...It's a legal distinction at that point as well. I didn't start showing with my first pregnancy until I was five months along...can't tell by looking at a person. I guess since I thought it was obligatory (and if not, I'm very surprised) this didn't bother me. Wouldn't a woman want to know what she's aborting? At four weeks, it looks like a pickle. At twelve weeks, it looks like a little man swimming around, kicking and doing flips. I think it would make a difference in the decision process.

So if a woman being forced to undergo this proceedure says she had an ultrasound a week ago, would she be exempt? Or would the law compel her to undergo a non-medically relevant medical proceedure for the sake of additional guilt? Would the law force her through the process again, taking up more time from an overloaded medical system and more money from the government to repeat the proceedure? If DOCTORS decide an ultrasound is USEFUL, then I'm fine with that, but thats not what this is at ALL.


This isn't about education despite the ham-handed attempt of people to define it as such. This is about the state interfering in a woman's life, forcing her to undergo a medical proceedure that is not necessary nor serves any purpose, in order to make her suffer for her decision, in order to make a hard decision harder. In order to make her cry even harder about an unpleasant proceedure NO WOMAN goes into lightly.

If the Christian far-right can give a woman a few more nightmare ridden sleepless nights through this pointless proceedure, then they will be happy. There is no other purpose being served here.




Which is, of course insane, not to mention incredibly insulting.


Trying to map this off as 'education' is disgusting. Where are the efforts of the Cristian far right to force unecessary medical proceedures on gun owners: CT the brain and make sure there is no nurological damage. Its all for education, right? hey, lets force anyone who DOESN'T have an abortion to watch films of starving children, neglected and suffering children, of unhappy tired parents going crazy, of mothers murdering kids in post-partm depression, so the mothers can rething their decision. Maybe we can guilt a few of them into having an abortion. I wonder how people on this board would react if the far-left in some state tried to pass that law?

Hey' its just 'education' right?

Tell me Bikerdad, how exactly is the woman being 'educated'? what does she 'learn' from this costly and unecessary medical proceedure? How is she more learner or qualified afterwards? This isn't education, its a shameful attempt at emotional manipulation and compelling medical procedures on women who are doing NOTHING WRONG OR ILLEGAL.

In a general terms, yes. Literally speaking, no. I’m just agreeing with SCOTUS to play the devil’s advocate. According to Kennedy, no woman in her right mind would have a “PBA” if she knew everything it entailed. He decided women didn’t need to know (informed consent wasn’t worth considering) and upheld the ban.

Would showing jurors a video of an execution make a difference during sentencing? I would say yes. But the law, our concept of justice, and the jury’s decision aren’t more valid after the jury sees the video.

P.S. How do doctors in states without mandatory ultrasounds avoid breaking the law? Are there undocumented cases of thousands of violations?

lesly thanks for digging up that info, I still don't see how a woman opts out of a veiwing when it is her body that is being viewed. There must be a means to opt out. I don't understand how it is possible to require a medical procedure without someone's consent.

As for the WaPo article Amlord offered, along with the other claims of this being education and informing a woman's choice. It is a woman's body, I don't understand how the Florida legislators believe they will be showing her anything she didn't already know or was aware of. I also don't subscribe to the article's belief that this act of seeing and recording the movement of the fetus is "the truth". They claimed that poor woman, Schiavo, was mentally viable because of her movements we saw in the videos with the balloons...was that "the truth"? Bonito flakes squirm when you put them on hot fried tofu and my kids swear they are alive, is that "the truth" too?

Come on, bucket. Don't patronize us and try to tell us that an ultrasound is not reality. It isn't a Mexican jumping "bean". I cannot for the life of me understand how we can just explain away the reality that abortion kills unborn children. Maybe not fully developed children, but children in some stage of development. It is reality.

The health of the mother is cited as a reason for getting an abortion in 4% of all abortion cases. The health of the fetus is cited in 3%. Rape is cited in less than 1%.

Personal choice is the reason cited in over 90% of abortions. Those "reasons" include

--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility--(32 %)
--economic--25% (21-28 %)
--to avoid adjusting life--(16 %)
--mother single or in poor relationship--(12-13 %)
--enough children already --(4-8 %)

Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute Study

I do think that the 16% of women who say they want to "avoid adjusting their life" should think about what they're doing. The state legislature making this part of the abortion process is perfectly in line with Casey.

Well sadly the law, and the majority of the American people disagree with you. An abortion destroys a zygote or foetus, there is no child there until birth, and that is reality. It may not be a reality you like, but according to te law of your land, it is reality.




Maybe they should. But the State has NO BUSINESS stepping in to FORCE women to under go a medically unecessary medical proceedure to guilt them into 'reconsidering' their actions. Maybe this 16% of women should think carefully about their actions. I suspect most of them DO, but maybe a small fraction of them do not.

But there is a Huge, MASSIVE gap between saying these people should think hard on their decisions, and saying the State should compel them to undergo a medical proceedure to force them to think about their decision. Besides Amlord, the law does not apply to your 16% of women, it applies to 100% of women.

There was a time when the right, and especially the far right, stood for individual freedom, removal of government interference and reduction of State powers. The fact that the right is clamouring to this bill allowing the state to compel non-medically necessary medical proceedures of people for the sake of forcing women to feel guilt and have a few more nightmares is a horrible betrayal of those principles. The bill is nausiating, but the precident is horrifying.

Vermillion,

Perhaps you should review the governing law here along with Supreme Court precedents. Casey clearly agrees with me, unequivocally on the waiting period especially.

As for the ultrasound, perhaps you should look to your own right wing government in Canada which generally requires (gasp!) an independent ultrasound before an abortion may be performed. Of course, Canada sends any third trimester abortion candidates to the States (on the taxpayer dime) because nobody in most provinces will perform a third trimester abortion (although it seems they are hiring...). Those barbarians up north!

You should stop with the alarmist language (right wing, nightmare, massive, nauseating, horrifying) you are using and start by examining the issue and the questions for debate, which are:

1.)Does the bill suggest as Rep. Skidmore maintains, that women do not think long and hard over their decision to have an abortion? Is it the role of the state to ensure that they do?

2.)How does this bill mesh with the Roe V. Wade decision? How does it follow it or not using the Court's decision?

3.)Will this bill prove to be an "undue burden" upon a woman's "right" to have an abortion?

Bikerdad wrote: "No, it suggests that women [...] may or may not think long and hard, but that the vast majority do so in ignorance."

Since you two seem to think there is a chance women are making the decision to have an abortion in ignorance after adoption counseling and fetal pain counseling and waiting periods and a slew of other pro-life information/roadblocks, some of which is based on bogus science, can you site some statistics that have shown abortion decreases in states where ultrasounds are already offered in every trimester? Florida already offers it in the second and third. Any statistic should take into consideration things like number of available clinics, whether it is easier to drive to another state, etc.

My guess is you would like to assume ultrasounds make a difference. Otherwise you two may have to own up to the fact that women will see the same thing you see on the screen and still go through with the abortion. That is patronizing, Amlord. You need to believe women don't know what they're doing for your own sakes, not for women seeking and getting abortions.

I have made no assumptions about whether or not having an ultrasound (or a waiting period) will have on abortion rates. My answers are about whether or not this is Constitutionally valid.

Your answers to the debate questions deal with the constitutionality of the law. Your response to Bucket, which I responded to, and you don't quote now, does not.

Saletan wrote, and you quoted: "The image on the monitor may look like a blob, a baby or neither. It certainly won't follow some senator's script. All it will show you is the truth." Is there any reason why Saletan's description of the truth is more valid and less patronizing than Bucket's tofu?

I do.

I oppose the current government in Canada on many issues. Your point being? By the way, they may be 'right wing' for Canadians, but even our right wing government is far, far to the left by US standards.

Oh, and the ultrasound in canada is a medical decision and is often taken, not always by law with a 24 hour waiting period. It is taken if the doctor feels it is medically necessary. It is not taken because pro-lifers are trying to legeslate around existing abortion laws and make women feel guilty.



That is Quebec, and I have some problems with that as well. That is not 'most provinces', that is not the rest of Canada.




Why? I do find this nausiating, and I think it does set a horrifying precident: the right-wing state government compelling non-medically necessary medical proceedures for the sake of causing guilt. I have been answering the questions, thank you. In fact almost everything I post is in direct response to the first question.

I am patronizing? I thought this bit of legislation was the patronizing objection here. I thought people had to go to school and were medically trained to read sonograms? Will women get the proper education we need in order to efficiently read the sonogram image forced upon us? What truth are you hoping to project to a woman by showing her a sonogram image of her 10 wk old pregnancy that she isn't even trained to read? You know they often have to point the head out to you, because as a layman you can not even decern it for yourself. Do you think you could tell the difference from a 10 wk old unborn child and a gallstone? I am not sure I could.

It seems far more like an emotional and yes personally projective plea of "truth" than any cold concrete seeking of factual "truth". To me it is akin to asking a woman to see the image of the virgin mother in her sonogram reading, what one feels spiritually about life, and it origins is not a truth for the state to be "informing" us on. Just because you personally can not explain away what you perceive as reality does not make it the reality for everyone, nor does it have to. And I strongly believe that any abortion sought in the first trimester should be unrestricted, even from the moral meddlings of others.



Personal reasons are cited for a personal choice, shocking. And what is with the quotes, do you not feel they are reasons? What excuses? I am not entirely sure of the argument you are hoping to make other than this projection of a sonogram is indeed, as I commented on earlier, an attempt to project your own moral feelings on this subject to the women seeking abortions.


I also think that Florida legislators should think about the 25% of women who cite poverty as their reason for aborting and the 36% who cite age and consider what it is they are doing to alleviate these issues women face when making family planning decisions...like better birth control access, sexual edu.- not abstinence based, better economic conditions for women and children and equal pay etc.

I'm fine with the waiting period, as it certainly isn't an undue burden. Give 'em pamphlets and tell them to come back tomorrow. I'm sure they will do just that.



Let's just scratch the unnecessary, forced ultrasound and use the money to provide free -- yes I said free, oral contraceptives to women making less than $xx,xxx per year.

What is the issue here??



So again, how does this new legislation affect this.

Girl walks in to texas clinic, and says "I want an abortion." Two hours later the girl looks at the doctor and says, "Cute picture, see you tomorrow." Then again, she may not choose to look at the picture.


The only issue I hear is that this is a State ran guilt trip. But I would think.. if there is that much guilt involved in getting an abortion, one shouldn't get it. And if the end result is more women decide to carry the baby to term, again, there is no negative, only a positive.

I don't believe this bill remotely touches Roe so I am still wondering why it is an issue.

Apparently, nobody can justify the law, as in demonstrating that the law does indeed do what it is, supposedly, intended to do: reduce abortions. A side question comes to mind then:

What other medical procedures are mandated by law?

I suppose inoculations for infectious diseases would come under this category, being as that's a public health issue. But no law forces me to go in for a yearly checkup, nor does any law tell me to take certain medicines a doctor might prescribe. I can willfully refuse surgery. I can state in a living will to pull the plugs if that's all that keeps me alive.

So, we have an unjustified law supported by the SCOTUS that discriminates against women. Well, Florida does, and the SCOTUS says this is okay. That's what I see wrong in this situation, because the law is clearly a discrimination against women, and that's not kosher to the Constitution of the United States of America. If 14 states have decided to be wrong too, that doesn't change the wrongness.

It's not an issue of whether the mother has a right to have an abortion. It's not a question about the abortion itself, but whether or not the mother is aware enough to make the decision. Know what? I don't care if the mother is aware or not. That's not my job.

That's the doctor's job. That's the mother's responsibility. It is really none of my business, unless I'm the father, and I'm not that either. Nor is any state legislature. So get yer noses out of other people's business.

That is, unless you're all for the government regulating your personal medical decisions. Skipped that mammogram, that prostate exam? It's off to the pokey for you!

I mean, that is the way we enforce our state laws, isn't it? That and heavy fines, or both (usually both).

Whatcha in for, dude? Uh, I didn't take my blood pressure meds.

So it comes back to that little philosophical thing in political science -- how does the government make people do things, or not do them? Along with this goes the question of when the government should try to modify behavior. And then there's the specific question on whether a particular law has any impact whatsoever on behavior.

Makes me wonder what would happen if a doctor and/or patient decided to defy the law. I mean, it is a useless law. It was passed just to make political points. It won't change the mother's decision.

Those are rationalizations. The fact of the matter is that in Florida, and apparently 14 other states, you can serve hard time and be fined stiffly for not following a useless law, and the SCOTUS says this is okay.

Well, I don't have to worry. I'm not a doctor, nor can I be a mother, and I won't be a father. But I do worry because the SCOTUS has its head screwed on backwards. I am worried about what's coming next.

You can actually opt out of immunizations based on personal religious or philosophical reasons. And your right it is an issue that is far more concerned with public health. That is why I have to believe that these sonograms also have an opt out too.


The argument is that if you live in an area where abortion is not readily available, and you have to drive hours and hours to seek this medical service it is a greater burden. Also what if you are poor and have no car? Have to arrange a ride or perhaps take a taxi? Again a far greater burden will be subjected to those in our society with less resources, and being that 26% of the women in Amlord's poll cited economic reasons for their abortion I would imagine this burden will be held by a good portion of women seeking to abort. I don't think when considering undue burden we should only consider it for all women or most, it should be any.

That's kindof funny: I have vague memories back in the days of the Brady bill when it was proposed that there be a small waiting period on the purchase of handguns. I seem to recall the NRA and its large number of supporters screaming to the high heavens then about how illegal and unjust this was...

The issue here is only partly if this is an 'undue burden'. Bucket has already made a case as to how it is potentially an undue burden on anyone who is poor and does not have easy access to transportation.

The issue here is that this is a useless law serving no purpose. Seriously here: What does this law do? What great need was it created to correct? If its NOT just about causing guilt, then why on earth do it? One or two people have tried to make it out to be 'education' which is laughable.

It has NO purpose, it is a guilt causing feature deliberately meant to guilt and inconvenience those who would seek abortions, based on NO medical need. And that is not even getting INTO forcing non-medically necessary medical proceedures on women. That's not even getting into the hundred thousand man/hours added to an overburdened medical system, thats not even getting into the multi-million dollar price tag: all to achieve.... what exactly?


No, in the grand scheme, if you CAN afford to make the trip and take the time off work, then a one day waiting period is not TOO much of a burden on women. So is that the gold standard for legislation in the US now? It doesn't do anything, it accomplishes nothing, it wastes valuable medical man hours and millions of dollars on nothing, but on the PLUS side it's not TOO inconvenient to the women singled out by it...


Even if you scrapped the trulyawful forced ultrasound, it is still a law which accomplishes nothing except give vulnerable women nightmares and crying fits, just so elements of the Christian right can feel better about itself. I said it in my last post, its the happy compromising of the basic principles of conservativism in the United States which astonish me the most. Step back from the abortion issue for a moment, and take a good hard look at the law, and the precident it sets, and the power it gives to the government, the money and man hours lost, all for nothing whatsoever...

Cab fare is not ever going to be considered and undue burden. If you're going to go to the trouble of terminating you pregnancy taking two trips to the clinic isn't much of a burden. Since the consensus here is that women do not flippantly decide to abort I can't see how one can argue that having to pay for two cab rides is an undue burden. One shouldn't expect to walk into an abortion clinic and have an abortion within the hour. This isn't Dominoes Pizza it's surgery!

Please. A quick google search finds that Planned Parenthood has an abortion clinic in Palm Beach. There are several others as well, including one that has been there for 25 years.

Ultrasounds (sonograms) are routinely done in abortion assessments to determine what method is best. This law does not add burdensome, unnecessary procedures. It simply codifies what is already done. As I have stated previously, the SCOTUS has already ruled on waiting periods--they are Constitutional.

Please? The Presidential centre was the one burned in an arson attack in 2005, it re-opened 2 months later. (The news report I had originally cited was old, and had not reported its reopening. My bad)

It is however, the only abortion provider in the entire county.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=29171

There is a Planned Parenthood in west Palm beach, and they do not provide abortions on site, referring people to the Presidential Centre.




No Amlord, it does not. Ultrasounds are OFTEN done prior to an abortion, as deemed medically necessary by the doctor. That is all. They are often not needed, often prior ultrasounds are used if taken in the previous month. The decision to have an Ultrasound before abortion is a MEDICAL decision. It says so quite clearly on the West palm beach Planned parenthood site you directed me to.

The decision to FORCE an ultrasound by the Florida state is NOT a medical decision, it is entirely a forced-guilt decision serving NO purpose. Was there a spate of doctors NOT performing ultrasounds when they should have been? Were the abortion climics not doing their job properly? No it had nothing to do with that. There was no medical need here, there is no medical justification. It is the state deciding, entirely for NON-medical reasons, to Force a medical proceedure on women.

It forces women to take time off work and make a second (completely unecessary) trip to a likely distant clinic, as well as being forced to undergo an unecessary medical proceedure for non-medical reasons. And why? What value added is gained by this law? What wrong has been righted by forcing these women to spend extra money and time, forcing the state to spend extra money in an attempt to make women feel more guilty? Who benefits from this law? What good comes from it?




The SCOTUS also ruled on abortions, declaring them to be legal. But that hasn't slowed down one whit the minority who want to ignore it and impose their will on the majority...

Abortion is legal. It was legal before this law and it is legal after it. The SCOTUS granted powers to the states to regulate abortions. I'm not sure how democratically elected state legislatures suddenly become a minority attempting to impose their will on the majority. That seems like an odd statement.

Your point about the availability of abortion providers brings up an interesting side note. Why don't hospitals provide abortion services? Or if they do, why do they only do so in the most extreme of circumstances (serious health threats to the mother or severe fetal problems). We should at least remember that these medical procedures are done outside of hospitals.

VERMILLION... ARE YOU ON DRUGS???

Ever heard of Judicial ACTIVISM??? This is where it all began. Roe v Wade.

The popular vote of Americans PRIOR to Roe v Wade was AGAINST abortion. This is why it was state law basically nationwide. Come on man...

The fact in this case, along with the OTHER 14 states that have waiting periods, is that the duly elected state legislature passed these laws. It's the BEAUTY of democracy. If they pass laws we don't like... we kick 'em out.

In Roe v Wade, the USSC changed all that. I pray that won't happen here. America is the closest thing the planet has to democracy... of course excepting when judges decide to modify history.

If people don't like it, move to Florida and vote out the people that made these decisions. Easy as that.

I'll never understand raging liberals that don't understand that if an elected legislature makes a decision that's against the wishes of the people, they lose their jobs. HENCE, the attempt to follow public opinion. Easy enough. The USSC ISN'T ELECTED. They were never designed to change the history of the nation's laws.

If Florida law makers decided to do this against the will of the people, it won't be long before they realize their mistake and change the law. My opinion is that this isn't the case.

VERMILLION... want some more objective information? Don't be crazy about this. Here are the facts:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/...in2699690.shtml
From a CBS Poll in April of 2007.


What does this say? Well, in my opinion, that about 1/5 of Americans think that abortion should be legal in all cases. The rest think that abortion should be conditional.

Is this how the US government approaches it? Well... sort of. Not really. Only partial birth abortions are stopped basically. In my earnest opinion at least a large portion of the listed polled believe that abortion should be legal conditionally upon health issues for the mother, etc.

Vermillion, don't quote that the US population believes in abortion. It surely hadn't come to a vote, and before Roe v Wade... it's obvious where the US stood.


Is this because a large portion (if not the overwhelming majority) of Doctors are against abortion? I can't find statistics that support this, but I have always found it interesting that abortion clinics are found as stand alone facilities. If it was nearly as an "acceptable" thought as Vermillion portrays, they'd be in hospitals.

I have heard you rant about judicial activism, and it is any case where Judges decide against what you personally want. This was truly a bizarre tirade Aevans: I cited that the majority of americans are pro-choice, and you rant on about how over 30 years ago this was not the case.

You are technically correct, but the funny thing about 30 years ago is that its thirty years ago. By your definition, were the SC to overturn RvW, THAT would be judicial activism of the same kind, seeing as how the majority of the population supports it.




Well, no, yor two party system is a very limited example of democracy actually, the parliamentary system is far more representative: but that is a total aside. I quite simply refuse to argue 'judicial activism' with you, you have shown amply that you like, nay even encourage judicial activism as long as the judges are ruling alng your personal opinions. Its just a term you use to slander judgements you don't personally like.




Come on Aevans, you are a smart guy: you knew even before you typed that that this law won't be a pivot point in elections. Even if the majority does disapprove of it, it won't be an issue significant enough to cause a pole shift in a two-party system.



Yes and in the more than three decades since RvW, its also obvious where the US stands. Do you deny this? Why do you keep citing poling from over thirty years ago as if it was relevant to the debate? Perhaps you are (in bold and caps no less) on drugs?

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

As you may know, the Supreme Court recently upheld a law that makes the procedure commonly known as a partial birth abortion illegal. Do you favor or oppose this ruling by the Supreme Court?

Favour = 53%, Oppose = 34%. So much for judicial activism.



Wow, THAT is quite a statement there Aevans. I think you will find the exact opposite is true. The AMA, AMSA, ACOG, AWMA are all pro-choice, as are almost all national medical organisations. If you want to make a somewhat wild claim like that, you are going to need to provide something to back it up, as it seems completely counter-intuitive.


You have however, sidetracked this into a generalised abortion argument. I note you at no point addressed the bill at hand or the arguments made against it, which is unfortunate, I presume you will do so next time.

Firstly, I'll establish this:
From Google:


Overturning legislation of duly elected officials is judicial activism. That's not on trial here.

Secondly-
Did you read this article?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/...in2699690.shtml

It surely isn't a biased statement. America is not for unabashed abortion laws. Sure, a large portion believe that in cases where the mother's health is at risk it's ok... but surely the statistics don't prove that Americans are pro-abortion in any majority.

Please provide ONE objective link to support your case. One shred of FACT. I truly tire of you rants, and IRONICALLY calling my posts rants.

Here is a good site that includes information about the AMA stance on abortion:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/...0first%20formed?

They kinda feel like many of us. Sure, it's ok if it happens when the health of the child or mother are in serious jeopardy. Is that how it works in the US today? Not no... heck no.

Here's a great quote from the site:


Now let's be realistic. Here are some facts. Try starting with these.

The fact is that Americans will TOLERATE abortion due to the USSC ruling and women's liberation-esque connotations that this debate has. However, waiting a DAY OR TWO is also widely accepted by even pro-choice people in many cases because it's REASONABLE.

It's a HUGE decision. It shouldn't be done like a drive-thru.

Where does AbortionFacts.com get their info from, Ted's Republican polling company? Seriously Aevans, try Gallup Poll or something less biased. The polls have consistently shown that the public favors keeping abortion legal with restrictions. Problem is, as I and others see it in this thread, two things. First, Amlord and others confuse an ultrasound as a valid guilt-inducing tool. Before SCOTUS upheld the "PBA" ban in fact, a majority of doctors performed ultrasounds in dilation and extraction. That is a medical necessity. Politics should never enter medical decisions, especially when surgery is already legal.

That should scare the crap out of you, but since we're discussing a wedge issue and it's a female problem besides it's your solemn duty to look the other way. What is the Florida legislature going to do when they realize most women opt out of viewing the ultrasound, pass legislation holding her hostage to her right to an abortion by forcing her to view the ultrasound before getting the abortion?

Secondly, a majority of Americans favor restrictions on abortion, but I think a majority of Americans don't know just how restrictive abortion law already is. How abortion restrictions have caught up to their support and how more laws could restrict abortion to the point where its legal status only counts on paper. That's one reason why I'm speaking out on this thread. People have no idea how many hoops women need to jump through.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

I think you've helped to make my point.

Simply put, I believe that the Florida legislature wants the woman to SEE the ultrasound. Why? Because it's not long into a pregnancy when the "fetus" looks an awfully lot like a "baby"!!!!!!

Again- this is a life altering event. Especially for the baby. If a large portion of women DO NOT look at an ultrasound, is it because of the overwhelming guilt? Would there be a benefit to having women look at the ultrasound? Hmmm...

How do you know? Have you been present for an ultrasound before the fourth month? Would you know where the fetus is and be able to point out features in this 17-week old ultrasound without the help of a trained technician or even tell if it was developing normally or not?


How can women pass up on viewing ultrasounds due to an overwhelming sense of guilt when they are waffling little girls incapable of appreciating the enormity of what they're about to do to begin with? Ultrasounds are done for medical reasons Aevans, not political/religious agendas.


Pro-lifers come one step closer to owning a condo in heaven.

Well, they'll have a trained technician there showing them. I also think that they should be advised to look at the picture. Why not??

Lesly, you mention guilt, Vermillion has mentioned guilt, but I don't think for second they are going to be made to feel guilty. It's not like the Doctor's going to say..."You're mudering a baby, you evil, evil person" If they feel guilt it is from within.

Look, I don't see fetuses as sentinent beings, but if seeing a songram of a fetus is enough to make a female feel guilty...then they should not be having an abortion, because obviously they must see feel that they are killing something more than an oz. of flesh. And if they do feel it is more than just a pound of meat then they ARE absolutely WRONG for having an abortion.

Again, the State is trying to help it citizens take more time to consider their actions, and to understand what their action are. And the fact that so many oppossing this Ban are speaking of guilt (which there shouldn't be) adds credence that their side (conservatives) are justified in their actions.

Well in my response above, Aevans mentioned guilt. Is there a consensus? Are women getting abortions incapable of feeling guilty, not feeling guilty enough, too stupid to realize what they’re about to do and incapable of feeling even slightly guilty?


See Droop, I think women are told often enough that they may be killing more than an oz. of flesh with all the paperwork they have to fill out and counseling requirements. Having an abortion doesn’t mean you pop into a clinic and get it over with in three hours. Why do we speculate a woman is going to be more informed with a sonogram (I’ve read the link I gave Aevans and I still can’t “see” the head) after being told, per federal legislation, that her fetus may feel pain, that her fetus is x-weeks old, etc.?


If they feel it is more than a pound of meat they would not be seeking abortions. People are complaining that myself and others aren’t giving women credit, they’re not capable of seeing The Truth for themselves but I think it’s the other way around. On top of this bill being practically unenforceable supporters assume women can’t determine The Truth before being offered an ultrasound.

Well, if women can’t see The Truth before the ultrasound, what else can we do to make an already grave decision even more grave in the future?


Is this the state’s job? Where else can the state make sure citizens thoughtfully deliberate medical choices?


Well, I can’t agree with this because I have to assume women understand what they’re doing. They may be pregnant but they’re adults.


Conservative philosophy using guilt as a vehicle for resisting social change is nothing new. What’s shocking or defeatist about acknowledging guilt as a conservative approach to abortion?

I think they’ve been disappointed that for 30+ years, after hundreds of laws passed chipping away at abortion, women still don’t feel guilty enough to stop having abortions. I do worry, however, what else they’re willing to try. I am serious when I asked Aevans if we should force women to watch.

Actually every statistic provided, including the ones provided by you, prove EXACTLY THAT, that Americans are pro-abortion. I have never claimed the majority was for unrestricted abortion rights, never. that is you trying to change the debate in the midle once you realised your original position was completely untenable.



I call some of your posts rants because they are. Now you are trying to completely shift the debate in the midle, asking me, nay DARING me to prove that the majority of Americans are for unrestricted abortions. Tell you what Aevans, I'll do that as soon as you show me ONE place, EVER where I claimed they did. That kind of shabby attempt to redefine your position as soon as you realise it is lost, and worse, redefine mine, is as transparent as it is ineffective.



Please. A good site? This exerpt from a fanatically pro-life book continously referring to abortion as bieng on par with the holocaust? yeah, good evidence on the AMA you have there Aeavans.

Forgive me, but if I want an AMA position on abortion, I wont go to a freakishly biased source like that, I'll go to the AMA itself. Or is that too unbiased for your tastes? Aparrently the AMA finds performing abortion acceptable and ethical.

The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law.

But why stop there, lets see what the ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has to say about the topic:

http://www.jstor.org/view/00147354/di975889/97p1511v/0

Oh thats right, they have been fighting for legalisation and removal of blocks to abortion since 1971. Gee Aevans, in your rant you seem to have forgotten to evidence your startlingly inaccurate comment that a large majority of doctors were anti-abortion. Why is that I wonder?

Even your incredibly biased site never claimed that, just that some doctors felt persecuted for performing abortions, something I have little difficulty believing given the violent stridancy of the violent militant wing (thankfully small) of the pro-life side.




Nobody is claiming its not a huge decision Aevans. have any other arguments you would like to make up and put in my mouth? You have ben doing a bang-up job so far. The idea that women don't CURRENTLY take it seriously is absurd, and even more frightening, the idea that the state has the right to MAKE people 'think about it', and compel them to undergo non-medically necessary medical proceedures is frightening in the extreme.

And the best any of the proponents of this bill have been able to argue is 'it's not THAT much of a hassle', and none have yet been able to specify exactly what need is being addressed, what benefit comes from or what is the actual practical point of the law? If not to simply be inconvenient... then what?

Give me ONE Good reason why the state should be forcing women to undergo non-medically necessary medical proceedures. Are they not being used sufficiently? Is there currently a conspiracy among doctors to not perform one if they feel its medically necessary? What could the point of this law POSSIBLY be if not to cause inconvenience and guilt?

I can't imagine why the ultrasound is necessary; just another hoop to jump over for women who are already used to jumping hoops! It still bothers me that others have so much so say over what should be personal between each woman and her doctor.