My wife is a sonogram tech and continually mentions how even well educated husbands and wives are amazed when they see what is inside the womb.

Oh, and who wouldn't bet that the same people who are demanding that young girls be given the cervical cancer vaccine want nothing to do with showing women the truth about their unborn children?

More abortions, more money in their pockets.

Fewer abortions, less money in their pockets.

Simple.

"To require them to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion is the most invasive type of moralistic lecture imaginable."

How is that invasive? An ultrasound examination is no more invasive than an x-ray and far less invasive than having your temp taken. know as I have had several of both many times over the last several years due to my Crohn's.

Spreading your legs so a doctor can reaching inside you and rip out a living human being is invasive, is it not?  Having an ultrasound scan taken before that invasive abortion is actually a wise idea as it may detect a uterine abnormality that might interfere with the abortion procedure and may cause internal injuries that can kill the woman. 

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court

NBers,

Question: is there a medical or health-related reason for doing an ultrasound before getting an abortion?

Forgetting the moral issues for a second, it seems to me that an ultrasound might be necessary to identify possible complications -- for example, an ectopic pregnancy -- before an abortion is performed.

Is this the reason why some states require the ultrasound, or is it solely to prove to the pregnant mother that there is indeed life inside of her?  ns

What are they afraid of?  They think the 'fetus' isn't a baby in the making and is worthless anyway, so let the expecting mother see the ultrasound before they kill it?  Ridiculous.  And yes, they do the ultrasound for medical reasons, to calculate the actual age of the fetus and ensure an abortion is legal and safe at that point.  With Obama as President, we can expect looser abortion law and more abortions....they had been declining this past decade, I betcha they start to increase unfortunately.

Hey Ken. Erbe said.. "No woman seeking an abortion does so unthinkingly. Few, if any, women use abortion as birth control, although the religious right would have us believe otherwise."

Wasn't Teresa Heinz-Kerry caught claiming something along the lines of.. 'many women (or, too many women) use abortion as a form of birth control?'  Naturally - her statement during the 2004 presidental race did not receive much attention in the MSM - "shh silence that, folks."

If so - then, would Erbe consider her a fanatic? 

thanks, (;~> gary

Antiabortion Fanatics' New Invasive Attack: the Forced Ultrasound 

     As opposed to that old invasive attack of shop vacing your unborn child from your uterus?  Yeah, the far right nutjobs are going to far in trying to prevent that by having a woman see who she is murdering.  How dare they?!

"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot

Erbe: "Read my lips: Elections have consequences. You lost. Go away."

• This election was a referendum on abortion?
  • If so, does this only apply to presidential elections?
  • How about the overwhelming numbers of real, specific referendums on abortion, in which the pro-life side wins consistently?
    • Notification referendums almost never lose.
    • Waiting periods almost never lose.
• We won in 2000, and 2004.
  • You lost.
  • You didn't go away.
  • Why not?
• Go away? No. Tough. Deal with it.

To require them to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion is the most invasive type of moralistic lecture imaginable. Some state laws would even require poor women to pay for them, which would put the cost of abortion beyond their meager reach.

First, there's nothing "invasive" about an ultrasound.  Second, more abortions will be performed if women are kept ignorant about all of the ramifications of what they're doing.

Thirdly, abortion is almost the only "civil right" in which the government is expected to pay if the poor can't afford one.  (The other that comes to mind is the right to an attorney.)  By the same logic, the government should protect my freedom of religion by building me a church, or my freedom of the press by buying me a printing press or a transmitter, or freedom of speech by renting me an auditorium.

 When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

I had ultrrasounds when I was pregnant with both my children. The first was done because I was spotting and the doctor wanted to make sure everything was okay. My son was fine. The second, with my daughter, was even more awesome because I was near the end of the pregnancy. That ultrasound was performed along with an invasive procedure called amniocentecis. The doctors wanted to know if her lungs were mature because I was threatening to deliver early. The ultrasound helped the doctor, me, and my daughter safely through the procedure.

As for this lunatic woman and her sick statements, the only thing ultrasounds might invade is the heart of the woman who might become attached (as if she isn't already) to what THEY call a fetus. When I was a child, everyone called an unborn child a baby. Then THEY started calling it a fetus, and successfully dehumanized the baby (though the word means "an unborn child").

This woman is as disgraceful and insane (not to mention spiritually dead) as the many "components" of the left. Sorry folks, but if they can dehumanize a baby developing in the womb, let's just refer to liberals as "excessive societal components" (ESC) that warp the truth, spit in God's face, and clog up the works.