Informed consent or too much information??

 Okay, this is fascinating....the abortion advocates object because the actual law says they can use either a vaginal or abdominal ultra sound which ever is clearer....obviously the clearer image would be vaginal...and to give a medically accurate description of the fetus. The supporters of abortion rights say this may cause a woman to get emotional and leave the room in tears...she may hear words she does not want to hear. They are required to turn the screen so the women can view the ultra sound but she is not required to.
What is causing such anger and angst is that women are required to receive medically accurate information and they may view an image of their offspring before making an irrevocable decision...
I have heard legislators who support abortion rights forcefully say that this is a hard decision on a woman and why make it harder....what is so hard about removing a clump of cells??

As Greg Koukl summed it up....if abortion is not taking an innocent human life, then we have no objection...do it all day long...but if it is taking an innocent human life what justification is acceptable. 
An the truth shall set you free.......

 

The New York-based abortion rights group has said the new law is among the strictest in the nation. The law requires doctors to use a vaginal probe, which provides a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound, and to describe the fetus in detail, including its dimensions, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity.
The law also requires doctors to turn a screen depicting the ultrasound images toward the woman so she can view them.
The Center for Reproductive Rights has said the law forces a woman to hear information that may not be relevant to her medical care and could interfere with the physician-patient relationship by compelling doctors to deliver unwanted speech.
Collett, a native of Norman, Okla., said Monday that nothing in Oklahoma’s abortion statute is inconsistent with standard medical practice.
“It would be remarkable if a women would undergo a medical procedure and a doctor would not have an obligation to describe the procedure and the results of that procedure to the patient,” Collett said.
She said state lawmakers required abortion providers to describe the ultrasound’s images because of some doctors’ “unusual failure” to pass along the information to pregnant women.
The Center for Reproductive Rights challenged the law on behalf of Nova Health Systems, operator of Reproductive Services of Tulsa, and Dr. Larry Burns, who the group said provides abortions in Norman.
Officials at Reproductive Services have said the law had drawn emotional responses from patients, some leaving in tears from the room where ultrasound procedures are performed because of what they had to hear.

Read the full article here