A blow for informed choice

  • Follow Editorials

It'd be almost funny, if it weren't so tragic: groups and individuals who call themselves "pro choice" being opposed to any information that helps a woman make an informed choice.

That's what a courageous bill in South Carolina is all about: informed choice.

The bill, which passed the state House by a wide 91-23 margin Wednesday, would require abortion providers to show women an ultrasound of their babies before the procedure.

A similar bill in the state's Senate would require that, plus spell out that the provider determine the gestational age of the fetus.

Susan Swanson of the Augusta Care Pregnancy Center has long said that ultrasounds convince the vast majority of women who see them not to have abortions.

That's precisely what South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is hoping for, saying the ultrasound bill "has the potential to lessen the number of abortions carried out in South Carolina."

Not through a ban. And not through blackmail or intimidation, as opponents recklessly allege. Indeed, how can there be any blackmail or intimidation? Providers aren't required to counsel their patients about what to do - only to show them what they are doing.

We know this much from history: The ultrasounds will look suspiciously like a human baby.

If that gives a woman pause, or convinces her not to have an abortion, is that blackmail?

Or is it the "choice" we've been told to genuflect to?

Comments (22) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 03/26/07 - 03:47 am
0
0
It seems to me 'choice' has a

It seems to me 'choice' has a different meaning to the radical pro-choice crowd, the ones that find the ultra sound law offensive. To this group, vacuuming the brain from a 8 1/2 month old 'fetus' and terminating a twenty day old fetus is indistinguishable, so this is what they teach in their 'pro choice' messages. It's no wonder they're offended by the ultra sound law.

Pay What U Owe
5
Points
Pay What U Owe 03/26/07 - 06:28 am
0
0
What I find most disturbing

What I find most disturbing in this proposal is the conception that, since a woman did not come up with the answer the "pro-life" crowd wanted, she must not have made an informed decision. The information she considered (her health, the viability of the fetus, her faith's definition of life's beginning) must have been inadequate. Ergo, the state must intervene and force her to consider the views of others and their faith's definitions of life's beginning and the value they place on life. The problem with this law in not so much the abortion issue (at least to me) but the free speech issue. While individuals have the right of free speech, the government cannot force tax-paying adults to listen to them. That is unconstitutional regardless of how conservatively or liberally one interprets the Constitution. If the people of South Carolina want to end abortion, outlaw it and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. Engaging in government-mandated coercion is just bizarre and creepy and shows just how far religious extremists are willing to go to force the definition of life on others. I think this country was founded to get away from people like that.

Carleton Duvall
6305
Points
Carleton Duvall 03/26/07 - 07:04 am
0
0
Pay what U owe- You are way

Pay what U owe- You are way out in left field

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 03/26/07 - 07:14 am
0
0
The problem I have with the

The problem I have with the Pro Death people is that they completely overlook or downplay the fact that they are killing a baby. It doesn't take a religion to decide when live begins. If not at conception, then please tell me when? There is no other concrete change in physiology other than conception and delivery to deliniate between a live human and cells. I suppose the pro death people would like to have the option open up intill the mother goes into labor. Why not have the option up intill puberty.....or untill they are 18? The simple fact is that in every successful abortion, one human being is killed. I don't see how that can be considered a "choice."

Pay What U Owe
5
Points
Pay What U Owe 03/26/07 - 07:24 am
0
0
But how do you know they have

But how do you know they have completely overlooked that? How do you know they have not worried and prayed and counseled and in the balance of their lives, decided that ending the pregnancy, while perhaps not good, was the least negative outcome for all involved? The only answer you have is that they didn't come with the answer you wanted. Talk about an uninformed decision! In my own faith, I believe that the will of God cannot be thwarted. I believe that He defines life not based on physiology but the adherence of the soul. If that batch of cells had a soul attached to it, God will take care of it. It will be born to someone else or recovered to Him. Either way, life as God defines it will be preserved. Perhaps this is a test of faith, the way God tested Abraham to sacrifice his own son. Or to see if an individual can put their existing children's need for a mother over her own desire for another child who may not be healthy. Maybe it's a test for all of us to try to find mercy in the situations of others as we struggle to know the right thing to do. I don't have easy answers but having this bizarre form of propoganda at the last minute certainly won't provide any.

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 03/26/07 - 07:30 am
0
0
It's called no one's business

It's called no one's business but the Mother. I do not believe in abortion but I do believe in a woman right to her choice. I just wonder what the next step will be by the so called right to lifers. I doubt that viewing an ultra sound picture will change the minds of those who have already made the decision to have an abortion. I would like to know what would happen to a person that decides that she will not look at the picture. Are they going to force her to look? By the way PRO-DEATH is a buzz word that has no effect.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 03/26/07 - 07:47 am
0
0
A fetus is not a baby?

A fetus is not a baby? Surely you are kidding. So it's ok to kill it up intil delivery? Why not after? Suppose the mom can't afford to feed herself and the baby? Can she kill the infant then because her rights trump that of the infant? If a child is born premature, can you kill it then because it hasn't reached "humanhood" by being 9 months past conception. Murder is not the mother's choice. How can a baby with brainwaves and a heart beat not be a baby? And I appologize for the buzzword. Won't happen again.

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 03/26/07 - 08:29 am
0
0
kpc I agree with everything

kpc I agree with everything you say. The only problem I have is that if the government can go this far, what is going to stop them from telling you that you can only have so many children. I wish with all my heart that abortions were not nescessary, but in EMERGENCIES, I do feel that it should be an option.

Michael Ryan
772
Points
Michael Ryan 03/26/07 - 08:47 am
0
0
Great discussion -- and so

Great discussion -- and so early in the day.

As for the question of who will pay, I believe the ultrasounds are already required at the state's three abortion clinics; the change would be that they would be required to proffer the ultrasounds to the mothers.

Michael Ryan
Editorial page editor

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 03/26/07 - 09:14 am
0
0
I agree, but there needs to

I agree, but there needs to be VERY strict limits to the definition of EMERGENCIES. And believe it or not, I don't agree with the state requiring the ultrasound. People are allowed to make uninformed choices if they wish. They also have the right to get any information that is available. As long as abortion is legal (which I incidently don't believe it should be,) it's not the govenment's responsibility to decide what information the mother recieves. But fot the statement "no one's business but the mother." That is absolutly not true. It's also the father's business.

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 03/26/07 - 09:38 am
0
0
Yes but remember mother's

Yes but remember mother's baby, father's maybe.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 03/26/07 - 09:50 am
0
0
Yeah, but if my wife had

Yeah, but if my wife had decided to abort any of my children, because MANY people believe it's only the mother's decision, I would have been devistated.

intheknow
16
Points
intheknow 03/26/07 - 10:27 am
0
0
No. I agree with you in the

No. I agree with you in the incidents where the Mother is married. It is amazing that a lot of so called Fathers will not take the time to go to court and make their child legitimate, nor pay child support but they feel they should have a say in it's life.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 03/26/07 - 10:42 am
0
0
Well, you can't have one

Well, you can't have one without the other.

CINDYLOUWHO
0
Points
CINDYLOUWHO 03/26/07 - 10:47 am
0
0
i think this will make them

i think this will make them realize3 that that child id a human being not justa fetus as some people say. some woman feel they have no other option and maybe after seeing that ultrasound it will make them think about options other than abortion. there are plenty of people out there who can and would adopt those babies if given the chance. i think soemtimes getting pregnant bc of not using birth control or it not working like it should is an inconvience and they wouldn't want to inconvienced by having a child so they have an abortion.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 03/26/07 - 11:12 am
0
0
True CINDYLOUWHO (who was no

True CINDYLOUWHO (who was no more than 2), but a better idea would be to show the lawmakers the ultrasound. The mother is just exercising an option that they made available to her. An option of legalized murder.

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 03/26/07 - 11:22 am
0
0
As far as who should pay for

As far as who should pay for the ultrasound if it is made mandatory, the answer is obvious. The peson getting the procedure done should pay for it. Just becasue the govenment requires something does not mean the government should pay for it. If that were the case then the government should pay my car insurance, my personal property tax, etc.

CINDYLOUWHO
0
Points
CINDYLOUWHO 03/26/07 - 12:00 pm
0
0
no more than 2?

no more than 2?

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 03/26/07 - 12:04 pm
0
0
Cindy lou who, from the

Cindy lou who, from the grinch. She was no more than 2.

CINDYLOUWHO
0
Points
CINDYLOUWHO 03/26/07 - 12:07 pm
0
0
oh yeah. but this one is 24

oh yeah. but this one is 24

CINDYLOUWHO
0
Points
CINDYLOUWHO 03/26/07 - 12:10 pm
0
0
i could almost understand a

i could almost understand a woman who was raped but the ones who feel that pregnancy is an inconvience and just want a way out so they can just go out and get pregnnant again should be required to see what they are killing---an innocnet life

_kpc_
22
Points
_kpc_ 03/26/07 - 12:50 pm
0
0
I guess I'm a little harsher

I guess I'm a little harsher on the topic than most. I don't see that the circumstances of the conception are relevant. It is unfortunate that a woman/girl must go through pregnancy if she is raped, but killing a child is not the answer. The murder of a child is more unfortunate than enduring a pregnancy.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs