NEWS: South Carolina to Mandate Unnecessary Medical Procedure

POLITICS: South Carolina to Mandate Unnecessary Medical Procedure

South Carolina is considering a law requiring women undergoing abortions to view an ultrasound image of the fetus. It's obviously an attempt at emotional manipulation; the argument in favor of the law is that

The biggest problem here, though, isn't its manipulativeness or its condescension (gee, does any woman going in for an abortion really not realize that if she doesn't have one, she's going to give birth to a Real Live Baby?!?). The real problem is that an ultrasound is an unnecessary medical procedure. One that costs money.

So the state is considering a law that (1) forces pregnant women to undergo unnecessary medical procedures; and (2) forces pregnant women to pay for same. If (1) alone doesn't get you, on the basis of medical ethics and the right to the integrity of one's own body, (2) oughta outrage you on the grounds that have apparently become more important to Americans than physical integrity--our right to the integrity of our wallets.

And even if we give the pro-life bullies the benefit of the doubt and say okay, yes, an ultrasound gives a woman information she might not already have known--i.e., what a first-trimester fetus looks like--I wonder, really, if the folks passing the law themselves know.

The picture above is of a 10-week old fetus inside the amniotic sac. The fetuse's butt is up above the top frame and its head is at the bottom center of the image, just above the title.

Note that the head has a big fluid-filled sac in the center, indicated by the white arrow. Note also that according to the page at the University of Florida's ob/gyn website where I found the image, this is a normal finding at this stage.

In other words, towards the end of the first trimester of pregnancy--that is, when the vast majority of abortions take place unless paternalistic pro-life legislation masquerading as "informed consent" laws has forced women to delay abortion while they gather the money to travel to a far away clinic, pay for a hotel during a 24-hour waiting period, appeal to a judge to waive a parental consent requirement, etc.--it's perfectly normal for a fetus's head to be filled with amniotic fluid.

In a full-term baby, this is called hydrocephalus, and if the baby lives (as in the linked image), it may rupture the mother's uterus during delivery (which can be fatal), will certainly require medical intervention if it is to live, and is likely to be severely disabled, as you might well imagine. In fact, discovery of hydrocephaly is the usual reason for third-trimester abortions and the so-called "partial birth abortion," or intact dilation and extraction: you can see why in such a case the safest procedure would, indeed, require the doctor to puncture and drain the fetus's head before delivering it.

But in a ten-week old fetus, this is normal. Nonetheless, the State of South Carolina, in its wisdom, thinks women, in their foolishness, need to be made to think real hard about the morality of killing a fetus that, with a head still partially filled with amniotic fluid, can't think yet at all.

Bitch_PhD thinks that lawmakers who support this kind of legislation should be forced to pay to have their heads examined.

That is pretty terrible.

"(2) oughta outrage you on the grounds that have apparently become more important to Americans than physical integrity--our right to the integrity of our wallets"

I used to say the same thing about the war a couple years back, seeing as those I knew in favour of it also used to hate having to pay taxes...

We have a program similar to this in MO called Open Arms. It's goverment funded so pregnant woman are allowed 13 free weekly ultra-sounds. The only women that I know who use it have no intentions of having an abortion and just want a free ulta-sound.

insulting.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I think my heart just died a little

Totally disheartening.

Do you have a link to the bill under consideration?

This sounds a lot like a generic 'pay attention to me!' bill-- proposed with little or no support, mostly for press coverage.

Do they have to name it too?

I vote we name it the Evillest Bill Ever.

fucking ridiculous

I'm looking for it, but first, check this out:

It's, I guess, a new version of a bill proposed in January that the Senate also proposed.

Great, a woman's a murderer the morning after.

Fuckers.

I think if a woman is an hour away from having an abortion performed, she's more then likely thought real hard about it and came to a conclusion already. She really doesn't need state-mandated attempted guilt trips (especially ones that she's going to have to pay the bill for). That's just kind of cruel.

Here we go.

If the person is under eighteen, her parents need to review the information and sign off on it.

Also sitting in committee in the SC Legislature:
Fetal Pain Awareness and Prevention Act

Healthcare Freedom of Conscience Act:

Never a dull moment!

So, it's been sitting in committee for two and a half months.

Yeah, imminent crisis, get the pitchforks, etc.

personally, i find threats to personal freedoms to be pretty important and attention worthy, regardless of whether or not my pitchfork should be dusted off or not.

i also think that Bitch_PhD is an incredible asset to this site. rock on.

I'm pretty sure you're okay, being in Saskatchewan and all.

I think she likes to stir the pot.

thats pretty messed up. freedom of choice... but the government will give you the choices: red or maroon? you dont like it? you want blue? sorry, folks, government doesnt have blue. freedom of choice: red or maroon.

this shit makes me sick.

Many Americans are inunsured (~50 million) and I can imagine that the percentage in SC without coverage falls close to the national average. Does anyone know how much an ultrasound costs for someone without insurance?

What Zo said.

I'm guessing NC isn't far behind... I really hope this doesn't pass, for many reasons.

Separation. of. state. and. church.

Freedom.

Democracy.

All myths.