Full Version: New legislation related to Abortion
QUOTE
A new bill in the Michigan House calls for medical clinics to offer women the chance to see moving and still pictures of their unborn child before having an abortion, but this bill is causing some concern.
Grand Blanc Representative David Robertson introduced the bill Wednesday. A bill, he says, that will help provide the most information for women considering an abortion.
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=3059904&nav=0RbQXLGO
Grand Blanc Representative David Robertson introduced the bill Wednesday. A bill, he says, that will help provide the most information for women considering an abortion.
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=3059904&nav=0RbQXLGO
The bill will require abortion clinics to offer women the chance to see an ultrasound of the unborn child they are carrying before giving consent to the abortion procedure. My view is that a woman ought to know the full ramifications of the procedure before she consents to it. This legislation is right on target.
Question for Debate:
Do you support this legislation? Why or why not?
Do you support this legislation? Why or why not?
I don't have a problem with it provided it's clear that the clinics have to offer the service and are not required to show it if the woman declines. Women who've made up their minds to have an abortion will do so without regard for the pro-life movement's legal impediments.
I don't have a problem with it provided it's clear that the clinics have to offer the service and are not required to show it if the woman declines. Women who've made up their minds to have an abortion will do so without regard for the pro-life movement's legal impediments.
QUOTE
Thompson and her allies say the most onerous state requirement - particularly for rural residents - prohibits women from having abortions until at least 24 hours after they receive mandatory counseling from a doctor on the risks of the procedure and alternatives to it. The requirement forces some women to take a day off from work and spend a night in Jackson - potentially a costly burden for low-income women.
"But a young woman who's made up her mind to have an abortion will find a way to pay for it," Thompson said. "She'll sell whatever she has at a pawn shop, steal, prostitute herself. She'll run in here - not walk, but run."
The Jackson clinic, which charges $380 for first-trimester abortions, provides the mandatory counseling in group sessions unless a woman requests a private briefing.
"They don't hear a word you say - they don't ask questions," Thompson said. "They tell us, 'We understand this already. We're not stupid.'"
In abortion debate, Mississippi shows how far a state can go with array of restrictions
"But a young woman who's made up her mind to have an abortion will find a way to pay for it," Thompson said. "She'll sell whatever she has at a pawn shop, steal, prostitute herself. She'll run in here - not walk, but run."
The Jackson clinic, which charges $380 for first-trimester abortions, provides the mandatory counseling in group sessions unless a woman requests a private briefing.
"They don't hear a word you say - they don't ask questions," Thompson said. "They tell us, 'We understand this already. We're not stupid.'"
In abortion debate, Mississippi shows how far a state can go with array of restrictions
Do you support this legislation? Why or why not?
No, I don't, unless it only applies to clinics receiving federal or state funding for those services. And even then I would agree with Lesly that it should be clear that its a required service offering, and not compulsory.
If I thought that it would genuinely help diminish the plethora of sob stories on the internet of women who've "suffered" an abortion at the hands of Planned Parenthood or their husbands, I'd give it greater consideration. But the reality is, it won't.
Also, PP is already offering this type of counseling, so what's the point? From the article originally cited:
This is yet another example of our paternalistic government telling women specifically they are incapable of reaching a difficult decision on their own without mandatory counseling. If the government is subsidizing the procedure, then I can see a case for these type of restrictions (even if I don't like them, they are footing the bill). Otherwise, they should butt out.
Sometimes I wish the government would take its compassion off of our bodies.
Doc
No, I don't, unless it only applies to clinics receiving federal or state funding for those services. And even then I would agree with Lesly that it should be clear that its a required service offering, and not compulsory.
If I thought that it would genuinely help diminish the plethora of sob stories on the internet of women who've "suffered" an abortion at the hands of Planned Parenthood or their husbands, I'd give it greater consideration. But the reality is, it won't.
Also, PP is already offering this type of counseling, so what's the point? From the article originally cited:
QUOTE
However, Sarah Scranton of Planned Parenthood says clinics already offer the service to women thinking of having the procedure.
Sarah Scranton, Planned Parenthood acting exec. Dir.: "W e already provide counseling and viewing of ultrasounds. This bill is redundant and does not seem necessary."
Scranton says most women choose not to see the ultrasound or any still pictures, a nd she feels the bill is just 1 more way to place restrictions and guilt on women thinking of abortion.
Sarah Scranton, Planned Parenthood acting exec. Dir.: "W e already provide counseling and viewing of ultrasounds. This bill is redundant and does not seem necessary."
Scranton says most women choose not to see the ultrasound or any still pictures, a nd she feels the bill is just 1 more way to place restrictions and guilt on women thinking of abortion.
This is yet another example of our paternalistic government telling women specifically they are incapable of reaching a difficult decision on their own without mandatory counseling. If the government is subsidizing the procedure, then I can see a case for these type of restrictions (even if I don't like them, they are footing the bill). Otherwise, they should butt out.
Sometimes I wish the government would take its compassion off of our bodies.
Doc
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Mar 11 2005, 06:28 AM)
QUOTE
A new bill in the Michigan House calls for medical clinics to offer women the chance to see moving and still pictures of their unborn child before having an abortion, but this bill is causing some concern.
Grand Blanc Representative David Robertson introduced the bill Wednesday. A bill, he says, that will help provide the most information for women considering an abortion.
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=3059904&nav=0RbQXLGO
Grand Blanc Representative David Robertson introduced the bill Wednesday. A bill, he says, that will help provide the most information for women considering an abortion.
http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=3059904&nav=0RbQXLGO
The bill will require abortion clinics to offer women the chance to see an ultrasound of the unborn child they are carrying before giving consent to the abortion procedure. My view is that a woman ought to know the full ramifications of the procedure before she consents to it. This legislation is right on target.
Question for Debate:
Do you support this legislation? Why or why not?
I don't think this law offers any new chance for pregnant women to see an ultrasound prior to an abortion.....I am 99.9 percent certain that all legal surgical abortions require an ultrasound anyway. As state laws change depending on the gestational age of the embryo/fetus, it is necessary to determine that via ultrasound. I am against federal laws placing regulations on abortion procedures, but Michigan should be free to do this, or any other state government. I would vote in favor of this for my state.
QUOTE
Question for Debate:
Do you support this legislation? Why or why not?
Do you support this legislation? Why or why not?
I don't support it. It's designed to be more of a tactic to delay an abortion, pure and simple. If the courts have decreed that it's legal, states shouldn't obstruct the law through provisions that infringe upon that right. A similar occurance in history would've been the poll tax and literacy tests for African-Americans to vote. While not preventing them from voting per se, it did lead to a discouragement of people who wanted to exercise their rights.
QUOTE
Question for Debate:
Do you support this legislation? Why or why not?
Do you support this legislation? Why or why not?
I agree with nebraska29 that this is yet another measure to help delay a woman's decision in an abortion, and in effect, make it more difficult to have the abortion.
Also agree with Doclotus in the belief that this will not diminish the "sob-stories" of women who have "suffered" and abortion. This is a common practice at this point, and a bill like this will only add to the beauracracy in an abortion procedure.
I do not support this legislation, and I stand by my personal belief that an abortion is and will always be a moral decision by a woman, and hopefully, her boyfriend/husband, and should not be in the hands of the government.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.