Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames
I guess when in doubt the best thing is to really look at the legislation itself instead of using the wonderful filter of the media. Directly from the bill, this is what the woman will need to sign off of prior to having the abortion:
"(5) before receiving a sonogram under Subdivision (4)(A) and before the abortion is performed and before any sedative or anesthesia is administered, the pregnant woman completes and certifies with her signature an election form that states as follows:
(1) THE INFORMATION AND PRINTED MATERIALS DESCRIBED BY SECTIONS 171.012(a)(1)-(3), TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AND EXPLAINED TO ME.
(2) I UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF AN ABORTION. |
Sounds like this is enough right there.
Quote:
|
(3) TEXAS LAW REQUIRES THAT I RECEIVE A SONOGRAM PRIOR TO RECEIVING AN ABORTION.
|
Absolutely intrusive legislation IF there is no medical reason for it. Sounds like its used solely for the purpose of trying to convince the woman out of her decision.
Quote:
|
(4) I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE THE OPTION TO VIEW THE SONOGRAM IMAGES.
|
Quote:
|
(5) I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE THE OPTION TO HEAR THE HEARTBEAT.
|
All very reasonable if medically necessary for her to have the sonogram.
Quote:
|
(6) I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED BY LAW TO HEAR AN EXPLANATION OF THE SONOGRAM IMAGES UNLESS I CERTIFY IN WRITING TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
|
Quote:
|
I AM PREGNANT AS A RESULT OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT, INCEST, OR OTHER VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OR THAT HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED BECAUSE I REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT DOING SO WOULD PUT ME AT RISK OF RETALIATION RESULTING IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY."
|
Not reasonable, big government intruding itself into the vagina of women
Quote:
|
As you can see like I've been saying the woman has the option to view the sonogram and hear the heartbeat, but the only requirement is the description of the development of the baby. Also as I mentioned before I believe that an ultrasound was already a requirment prior to having an abortion prior to this bill.
|
Which is whats wrong with this legislation. You approach this from the side of hoping this dissuades her to drop the abortion, while the rest of us see it as another attempt to pressure women out of an abortion by the pro life lobby.
The fact she has to have a sonogram, by the way which is done by a trans vaginal probe is stepping beyond what a government should legislate. Its not the job of government to step in here, she has the legal right, she shouldn't be forced to have the sonogram unless there is a medically important reason, other than to help dissuade the woman.
But since you approach this from a religious viewpoint will either of us change our minds or change each others?
BTW, trans vaginal probe:
