WISCONSIN: Legislation requiring ultrasounds

About one of the things pro-abortion advocates fear the most.

From CBS58 in Wisconsin:

Wisconsin Senate pass abortion bill, ultrasounds now required

WISCONSIN — Wisconsin Senators have passed a bill that would require doctors to perform ultrasounds before performing an abortion. The bill, sponsored by Republican Senator Mary Lazich, would also require that doctors discuss in detail the features of the fetus with any woman seeking an abortion.
The ultrasound would not be necessary in a medical emergency or in cases where the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest. [Because they are.. well... less human, I guess.] Senator Lazich has stated: “It is only right that a pregnant woman is fully informed about her child prior to abortion. Far too many women regret their abortion and suffer years of abortion trauma.”
The assembly is expected to vote on the bill as early as tomorrow, and if it passes, Governor Scott Walker says he’ll sign it by the end of the month.
Teri Huyck, President of Planned Parenthood Wisconsin has said, “Women are already informed before they have an abortion. We have an extensive informed consent process…we offer the availability of seeing their ultrasound. I think Senator Lazich is not giving women credit for the intelligence they’ve got.” [You would think that intelligent women would want to know as much as possible.]
If the bill is signed into law, Wisconsin would become the ninth state to require women to receive ultrasounds before abortions.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick, Emanations from Penumbras and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to WISCONSIN: Legislation requiring ultrasounds

  1. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    Truth terrifies.

  2. john_6_fan says:

    I keep seeing statistics on blogs and twitter about recent waves clinic closings and clinic workers quitting, but don’t know the details of where these occur. I wonder if there is an uptick in these statistics in states where an ultrasound is required. Just speculating. I don’t have data to back it up, but it would make sense. I think the ultrasound (knowledge) is one of the greatest weapons we have to plant seeds and change hearts.

    On Wisconsin!

  3. rhhenry says:

    Can someone please explain to me — on a linguistic level — the “rape or incest” clause?

    Surely we are not talking about “rape or consensual incest.” Therefore, we are talking about rape or “really-icky rape” (sorry for the insensitive terminology).

    So the “pro-choice” advocates have only two categories where Americans think abortion is possibly justified: the life of the mother and rape. But they separate out incest-rape as a third (and, therefore, rhetorically strong) category.

    Kind of like: I hate rectangles and squares, too.

    Can anybody help me with this?

  4. drea916 says:

    What kind of ultra sound? If it is the kind that requires the wand to be inserted, then it won’t pass. (I believe that ultra sounds in early pregnancy do require the wand kind of ultra sounds, as opposed to the kind where a sensor is guided across the belly) If it requires that it be inserted, then Pro-aborts will cry “rape!” and that will be the end of that.

    In addition, us pro-lifers need to get real. There are lots of woman who choose life when they see their baby. However, there are many woman who have full knowledge and consent about child development and get the abortion anyway. PP points this out- many woman already have children so they know what’s going to happen. The Woman is scared and/or poor and/or in a tough situation and will kill their babies- because they can. To reach these women, we need to focus on THEM and giving them hope in their motherhood. Solve their problem, and they will be less focused on procuring an abortion to solve their problem. Sometimes knowledge isn’t as powerful as we would think it is. (Disclaimer- I AM 100% prolife. I’ve worked on the local pregnancy hotline, etc….I just think sometimes us prolifers get stuck in our own ways of thinking and then don’t reach solutions.)

  5. StJude says:

    In 1992… I really didnt care about abortion, its just a blob of cells.. didnt give two seconds of thought about it.
    Then.. my sister and her husband became pregnant.. she had to have an ultrasound really early like 8 or 9 weeks…. that was no blob of cells. that was my nephew.. with arms.. legs.. and a heartbeat.
    I was pro life since that moment. That ‘blob of cells” is in college now.

  6. Anchorite says:

    Fighting against seeing ultrasound images prior to abortion are one of the only moments when liberals would refuse scientific, observable evidence from being shown in public.
    The other times are when Obama’s administration is evidently breaking laws, lies, and aids the American enemies.
    In all of these cases the only reasonable and logical decision is for people to walk away from an abortion clinic/Obama.

  7. Margaret says:

    I simply must call RUBBISH on the “rape” assertion with trans-vaginal ultrasounds. It is no more intrusive than a pelvic exam, pap smear, and far less so than the activities associated with getting pregnant in the first place. I also can’t imagine anyone in this day and age, even those with so little regard for women’s health as an abortionist, not taking at least a quick u/s peek for dating purposes. Besides the fact that incorrect dating could pose risks to the women herself, incorrect dating could also mean the abortionist passing up a few more almighty dollars. A second trimester (14 weeks) abortion almost certainly means a larger fee than a first trimester (12 weeks.) Even when the woman is seeking a chemical, not a surgical abortion, the dating is pretty critical, because there’s only a window of time when it can be “safely” used.

  8. Lepidus says:

    In general, I’m not sure that it is going to be as useful as we hope. I remember reading an article about a year ago where a woman went to an abortion mill and had her ultrasound and saw the fuzzy blob of cells. On her way out she was approached by a protester and given a card to a real clinic across the street. She went – the same day – and had another ultrasound which clearly showed the baby. Apparently, technique and/or equipment can make a big difference. (The end result of that story was that the protester became the godfather of that baby).

    The advantage of this law in WI, however, is a little piece that gets missed. The ultrasound has to be done by a doctor with hospital admitting privileges. From what I heard, the abortionist in the area are “such good doctors” that they don’t qualify!!

  9. frjim4321 says:

    Same issue as Drea. If this is the transvaginal ultrasound as was attempted in another state (Virginia?) it will not pass in the assembly.

  10. Giuseppe says:

    1) Supporting government-mandated medical tests prior to a procedure makes it easier to support government-directed medical care. Pro-ultrasound strengthens government-mandated care.
    2) A regular ultrasound in early pregnancies is not very impressive. Since most abortions occur in the first 10 weeks, ultrasounds do not show too much, other than the foetus is a ‘mass of cells’.
    3) Mandating trans-vaginal ultrasounds (which better show fetal development early in pregnancy) is a political non-starter (look up Governor McDonnell of VA, and you will find him referred to as “Governor Ultrasound”, who supported the insertion of an ultrasound probe into any woman who seeks an abortion. His national career was aborted in the process.)

    Interestingly, over the counter and non age restricted Plan B will probably do more to reduce abortion than any ultrasound legislation, even well-intended.

  11. Back pew sitter says:

    Even if it resulted in some women choosing not to have an abortion I don’t see how any Catholic or other right-to-lifer can support legislation requiring an ultrasound before an abortion. The legislation is basically saying “fulfil this condition, and then you can have an abortion if you want.” Yes, it might stop some abortions. But in itself it is merely specifying a condition for abortion and that is totally wrong. The good end does not justify the bad means.

  12. Giuseppe says:

    @Back pew sitter – Very good question – does legislation that sets up added criteria prior to an abortion actually cooperate with evil by outlining the path by which one might have an abortion?

    I still think that any law which requires a medical procedure gives carte blanche to Obamacare to dictate medical care. Will Governor Scott Walker sign a law which, in effect, emboldens government-dictated health care mandates?

  13. moon1234 says:

    I don’t see how this is any different than requiring a drug test before you get a commercial drivers license or a medical certificate before you can fly a plane. I don’t think it will make much of a difference though.

    I work for a company that makes products to quality check ultrasound machines. We have some pretty old and some pretty new ultrasound machines that we use for testing our products. The old machines will not show much to a layman that is looking at the screen. It will look like a black and white blob. If you switch to a newer ultrasound machine or even a 4D machine, then it is like looking though a mirror. The realism of 4d if quite starting. You can even see well defined hair on an infant.

    Abortions are already illegal in Wisconsin. It is on the books. The only reason they happen is due to federal nullification. It is sort of a non-starter that we pass laws to require an ultrasound before an abortion is preformed that is also illegal in Wisconsin.

    The admitting privilege requirement will do more to curtail abortions. Hospitals in Wisconsin do not want to have known abortionists on staff. It is very bad for business. A few years back Meriter in Madison tried to force abortions at the outpatient surgery center of Meriter hospital. There were 9 month long demonstrations in front of Meriter by Catholic and pro-life groups. The surgery center saw a 35% drop in business after the announcement and more than 18 OB and Gyn doctors left the Meriter group to form their own clinics or retired.

    We have had a lot of kids over the last 13 years (8) and all of them at Meriter. Two children back, when my wife was in labor, we learned that the “Senior” doctor on the ward had only been out of residency for TWO WEEKS. They had no other senior OB doctors. They had all quit or retired. Luckily my wife’s doctor was one of those who had left and started her own clinic with several other doctors. My wife’s doctor came in and delivered our little boy.

    Before all of this happened, we knew of two doctors on Meriter’s staff that performed abortions outside of the hospital, but still worked in labor and delivery. It just so happened that this doctor was working when my wife went into labor with our third child. When it was time for her to deliver this “doctor” came into the room all ready to “work”. I announced to the room full of residents and students that we did not want this doctor present as we do not agree that a doctor who performs abortions should deliver babies as we see abortion as murder. The whole room got silent and the doctor was very visibly upset. He said he had to present. I told him he could watch from the corner, but was not allowed to participate in anyway. The senior resident delivered by little boy and cared for him.

    I was told later by one of the nurses that none of them knew he performed abortions. It was probably quite a shock for him to have a patient reveal this information to all of the people present, but I think as Catholics we MUST stand up and expose abortionists for who they are. It was not more than a year later before this doctor no longer worked on the labor and delivery ward. I like to think that we had something to do with it.

    ASK your OB or Gyn if they do ELECTIVE abortions. If they do, switch doctors. Vote with your wallet and your mouth. If there are no doctors with admitting privileges to perform abortions, they will end. I said elective abortions because sometimes an unborn baby dies and the woman’s body does not mis-carry. This happened to my wife. She waiting three weeks after the baby’s death and still she did not miscarry. She started to look visibly sick and her white blood cell count had spiked. He doctor said she could no longer wait to miscarry. She had to have what was essentially an abortion, but the baby had already died. It still troubles me to see “abortion” in her medical record with no notation that it was not an elective abortion.

  14. David Zampino says:

    There is little doubt that the State Assembly will also pass this bill (a MUCH larger majority than in the State Senate) and the Governor has stated that he will sign it.

    The legislation also requires that doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a hospital within so many miles of the abortion clinic’s location. This will force the Planned Parenthood clinic in Appleton, WI to close!