Objections to informed consent bill acknowledges women know they are pregnant with an "actual human life."

Well  it appears that the abortion friendlies are abandoning their  'it's just a clump of cells' verbiage in this article written in the Nashville Scene  and promoted by Planned Parenthood on Facebook. . They were complaining about a bill filed in the TN state senate  by Senator Jim Tracy (R) Shelbyville.

"When you read SB0632, it becomes obvious that the bill is premised on the idea that if you're having an abortion, it must be because you don't know you're pregnant with an actual human life."

Wow, they are acknowledging that you are pregnant with a human life...not a clump of cells!!!!

This is in response to a bill  offering women presenting for an abortion the opportunity to view the  trans-abdominal ultrasound and receive a printed copy of the ultrasound. It also states that fetal information be explained in understandable lay terms and  to hear the heartbeat. Shriek!!!!!

Of course the abortion industry opposes giving women this information and further insults women by stating that ......"We Americans are a fat people."

Because of this statement,  they suspect more will have to undergo the trans vaginal ultrasound to get this information.    The abortion industry routinely does ultrasounds  to determine the fetal age to  determine the procedure used to kill the developing human life in the womb....and if the abdominal ultrasound is not sufficient...sometimes due to the girth of the mother, trans vaginal ultrasound is used. So what's the beef with providing the women with informed consent??? 

 I guess their  motto  here is less is better. Or could it be that more information means less business for the abortion industry??

Walters: Mother by adoption but supports abortion

Barbara Walters is a mother by adoption...yet she supports abortion. Is it a matter of I have my child so now I don't care?  I personally know two people who are mothers by adoption and pro choice. Where do they think their children came from? Again, is it a matter of I have mine so now I don't care about the rest? I cannot understand.


No Barbara, no child is unwanted....two MM couples waiting to adopt.

"I think that in order to even think about having an abortion, to give up a child that is obviously unwanted, that’s why you’re doing it, it is such a tremendous decision, it’s involved with so much fear of what you’re doing and guilt.

 Wait! Then to have to go and be forced to hear, to see the fetus, to hear the heartbeat, to put more guilt on you, I think is heartbreaking."

Fear and guilt....if it saves a life...what's the problem. These ladies on  The View  are disgusting.....

Abby Johnson expecting .....announces on Facebook

Abby Johnson: Pro-life advocate

Today, I had another ultrasound! The baby looks amazing and would not stop moving around! :) It was precious. Thanks so much for all of your prayers!!

 

 

Abby and husband have a five year old daughter. They think this one might be a boy. Congratulations to the family.

Thomas: Ultrasounds and Airline safety

Cal Thomas wrote an excellent column about the judge in NC granting a preliminary injunction to the new provision in the law that would requires a woman seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound within four hours of the an abortion. Of course the abortion industry opposes this and says it requires women to become "virtual billboards" ??? Really! Is this imagine being broadcast outside of the patient room?
Cal points out how ridiculous this is. The judge says the first amendment of free speech includes when you choose not to speak.


Cal Thomas makes a great analogy to listening to the airplane safety instructions each and every time you fly even though those very same instructions are printed in a card in the back pocket of each seat. Listening to those instructions might upset you, especially the part about what to do in a crash landing. I also note that they talk about a potential crash landing over  water even when I am flying from Nashville to Green Bay and will not be over any water.

"A federal mandate requires agriculture employers to provide an oral warning to employees of certain pesticide applications in greenhouses, farms, nurseries and forests. Another requires a home health agency to orally disclose to a patient prior to giving them care the extent to which payment may be expected from the federal government and how much the individual must pay. The comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC require banks that sell insurance to orally disclose to the consumer that the insurance is not FDIC insured."

Thomas concludes and rightly so that this decision  is "unabashedly political. How can  speech containing factual information violate the First Amendment, which is all about protecting, not restricting, speech?"

We know that as high as 90% of the women who view an ultrasound and are given factual information about fetal development will not choose abortion. Viewing the ultrasound makes it harder for the abortion industry to  call the offspring just  a clump of cells.  This is their real objection. They say that the pro life people want to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Well the abortion industry wants to keep women uninformed so  that their pregnancy can be $$wiped out again and again. Repeat customers  are the backbone of every business.  Remember that their core business is abortion....parenting or adoption does not ring the til.

Jezebel: Trusts women but prefers them uninformed...

One of my Facebook friends posted a pic of her ultrasound. It's a girl!  Congratulations! What a beautiful clump of cells!!

But Jezebel  finds the viewing of an ultrasound  so outrageous that she wrote a column about it. What is wrong with women being fully informed of the developing life in the womb?  PA has become the 7th  state to mandate that women seeking abortions be given the opportunity to view their "products of conception" or   " just  clump of cells" prior to having an abortion.    Not required....just the opportunity!! Shriek!!!

"Position the screen so that the patient is able to view the ultrasound test in its entirety, with a view of her unborn child,  while that test is being conducted to determine gestational age... [However] the patient is not required to view the screen."

She further is incensed that a copy of the ultrasound is offered to the women. Whatever happened to "Trust Women."   Maybe that should be Trust Uninformed Women Only!! What do the abortion friendlies have against informed consent.

"What I find profoundly insulting is that these men and women on this bill think their own voters, who they assume are smart enough to vote for them, can't figure out what their own pregnancies are about and are too stupid…or evil to handle it themselves ... If they can't handle their own pregnancies, certainly they're not qualified to vote for these people who are on this bill, and they should never vote for any of them."

Do you get her twisted logic? Anything that slows down abortion by allowing the  women to consider the FACTS of what they are doing is forbidden??

Jezebel  is trying to figure out a slogan to fit on the back of a bumper sticker outlining her objections to this bill. 

How about.....Abortion kills a baby....your baby.

Does advance techology bring out the worst in us....results show it does

12:56 PM

Update: The jury awarded the parents $4.5MM. They were asking for $9MM.

From Natl Right to Life

“I hope when little Bryan grows up he never Googles himself or his parents. I can’t imagine the horror when he reads that his parents wish they would have killed him. I wonder how quickly he will grasp that his parents think his life, since he has disabilities, isn’t worth living.  I wonder if that jury considered how the disabled community would feel if they knew that a jury awarded these parents millions because they missed the opportunity to abort their disabled son.”

This case in FL is that is still being decided as I write. It is of a child born with no arms and one leg. The couple is suing for $9MM for pain but they are not asking for any $$ for their suffering...I suppose wanting to sound noble.

No the dr. did nothing wrong in his care. The pbl is the ultra sound did not detect these issues and they did not have the opportunity to kill their son Bryan who is now 3 and described as a happy toddler. It makes me mad to read about this case. They were told that tests showed a slight possibility of their child having Down's Syndrome and offered an amniocentesis to confirm but they turned that down due to the slight risk of miscarriage but hey....had they known this they say he would have chosen abortion.  If I were the defense atty. I would bring in Nick  Vujicic, an inspirational speaker and advocate for the disabled who has no arms  or legs and just a "chicken wing" for one leg.

In another article , we read about a couple in the UK suing  the NHS Trust ( their version of universal healthcare) for wrongful birth. Yes, birth!!  The 20 week ultrasound failed to pick up that the baby had brain abnormalities which led to him being retarded with physical difficulties. They complain that the ultrasound technician was busy trying to get the baby to face the right direction for a good souvenir shot. While claiming to love their child the parents who underwent fertility  treatments to conceive state they would have aborted had they realized the boy had problems.

"Mr Glancy said the boy is well cared for by his parents and is a much-loved and cherished part of their family"

Really! But they would have killed him had they known about the disabilities!

The next article from 2010 was about a Baltimore couple  who sued the radiologist for $20MM in a wrongful birth suit. In this unusual case the first ultrasound showing the abnormalities  was sent to the wrong dr. When the  couple's dr. called to find out where the ultrasound  were was he was told the results were normal. When the later ultrasound showed the correct results, the baby was delivered prematurely and received medical treatment.  The article did not indicate what disabilities remain although the report indicates that the hole in his heart was surgically repaired. But here is the kicker....

" Had they known at the time they did the sonogram,” Snyder said, “the family would have made the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy.”

Just google wrongful birth suits and your page will fill up with actual cases of radiologists and OB/Gyn's being sued for wrongful birth when the children don't come out perfect. Amazing! Some states have even banned wrongful birth suits.

"Patients who had disabled children in the past didn't think of suing the doctor. . . . But as technology has grown, some women think that their child's disability is someone ease's fault,"

But the reason they are suing is  that they did not get a chance to abort them and now have to care for their children.

"A mounting number of obstetrician/gynecologists are being sued by patients who say they would have had abortions if prenatal tests had detected fetal abnormalities.

"This is directly contrary to our national and state policies promoting the lives and livelihoods of people with disabilities," said Clark Forsythe, president of Chicago-based Americans United for Life. "What we're dealing with here is the promotion of eugenics as a birth policy whereby doctors are sued for not weeding out the 'unfit."

Sometimes technology can bring out the worst in us.... 

Photo: from www.lifewithoutlimbs.org

Pink or blue .....a fun game of guessing or demands for $$ back guarantee???

I woke up thinking about an article from  the UK considering a bill banning radiologists from telling their patients the sex of the preborn child  they are carrying and the resulting cries of dissent.  One lesser point in the article said that drs. feared being sued by the couple if they told them the wrong gender.

I thought....what??? They would sue because they were expecting one gender and got another??? Does that mean they repaint the nursery walls??? Of course I come from the day when we bought green and yellow and the nursery walls were white because until that first appearance we did not know. 

My oldest grandchild's one and only ultrasound was before the sex could be identified. My daughter just felt it was a girl so she brought a dress to the hospital and the nursery was pink but alas my strapping grandson appeared. We were just as delighted. No, he did not come home in a dress  and remain gender confused and he did not notice the walls at all.  But today we are so used to having it our way that we would a $$ back guarantee.  

Today's' Tennessean had a lighthearted article about what expectant parents are doing to generate excitement about the blessed arrival. They are having Pink or Blue parties where they ask the guests to come dressed in pink or blue and cast their vote for the gender they are guessing. Until they cut the cake to display the pink or blue guests are not told. Some office personnel  have pools guessing the gender.
This new technology is fun and can be an asset but as we will see in other posts that technology can be a curse as well as a blessing.

Photo: Tennessean 

Thumbs up ultrasound......

 This is so cute...obviously he is happy to be allowed to live. He is 20 weeks.....20 to go. The most dangerous place for a baby is in the womb. Maybe he is sending his mother a signal.


London, England (LifeNews.com) -- Marie Boswell expected to get the latest information about the status of her unborn child from her physician. In a rare ultrasound picture showing her baby giving her a thumbs up, she got a progress report from the baby boy himself. Bosworth was stunned by the ultrasound photo of her 20-week-old unborn baby giving her the popular sign when everything's alright. "It was really funny," the 35-year-old mother said of the ultrasound picture she had at Wythenshawe Hospital, near her home in Manchester. She told the London Daily Mail newspaper, "I went to the scan with my friend and my mum and we were all just laughing. He was giving us the thumbs up, it was just so clear." "We couldn't believe it. I have big hands, but nothing on the scale of his," she told the newspaper. "We're thinking he might make a good goalkeeper. I've never seen a scan like this before - but we love it." "I've been keeping it in a book because I want to show it to him when he is older," she added. Boswell already has a 10-year-old daughter named Olivia and the doctors informed her that her baby, expected in September, is doing just fine.

Hello Baby or Fetus from Pampers....love it!

This may make the whole fight over ultrasounds silly....I love it. I don't have an ipad but the younger generation will be all over this....Hello Baby....bonding is wonderful

Gender determination fee charged with ultrasounds at some hospitals in Canada and disclosed only after 20 weeks to prevent gender based abortions

So no one would abort because they are disappointed in the gender would they? Apparently Canada has some reason to think they would. One comment that doesn't make sense in the article is that doctors may need to know the gender in the event of multiples....??? Like how many boys or girls is too many?

By Pamela Fayerman,
Vancouver Sun

Expectant parents curious to know the sex of their fetus during ultrasound examinations are now being asked to pay $50 at some hospitals, but the charge could eventually expand across regions.
The "gender determination" fee has been newly implemented at Lions Gate and Richmond General hospitals following a pilot project at the latter.

But a Vancouver Coastal Health spokeswoman said hospitals throughout the Lower Mainland, including the biggest maternity hospital, BC Women's, may eventually adopt the fee because diagnostic imaging services - those that use technologies such as ultrasound, X-ray and MRI - are being consolidated. As part of that, services and policies may be standardized.

A draft document of the new policy obtained by The Vancouver Sun indicates that while fetal gender determination is not normally included in the ultrasound, "at the patient's request, it will be included in the radiologist's report ... [and] a charge of $50 will be levied for this additional service.
"The ultrasound staff will not disclose this information to the patient. Rather, [the pregnant patient] will obtain it from the referring physician after 20 weeks gestation [when abortion is no longer an available option]."
The time period after which such information is disclosed is important to prevent women from aborting if they are disappointed by the news of the gender of their fetus. In some countries, such as India and China, millions of female fetuses are aborted each year.

Anna Marie D'Angelo, spokeswoman for Vancouver Coastal Health, said patients must sign a disclaimer before the ultrasound acknowledging that the ultrasound technician may make a mistake in gender determination.

"Right or wrong, no one gets their money back. But they will get a refund if the sonographer can't make a determination, based on the way the baby is positioned."
D'Angelo said an ultrasound is meant to be a quick procedure so the health professional conducting the examination will not spend a lot of time trying to find the gender.
"If they can't find it quickly, the refund will be given."
The fee is designed only as a cost recovery tool, not to generate profit or extra revenue for hospitals. She said there was no business plan developed for the policy change and the reason it's not expected to reap a lot of money is because the Richmond Hospital pilot project showed that of 198 women who had an ultrasound, only two chose to pay the fee over an undetermined time period.
All monies collected are to be reinvested in diagnostic imaging departments.
The $50 fee appears to be much lower than what women are charged at a handful of private clinics in the Lower Mainland. At Vancouver's Som Visao Urban Ultrasound Spa, for example, hundreds of women each month reportedly sign up for 3-D ultrasound packages costing $200 or $300, which include a live DVD, a CD of images, photos and gender assessment.
For $99, a shorter, five-minute ultrasound is offered to ascertain gender. The fee includes a photo to take home.
The Medical Services Plan does not cover ultrasounds that are done solely to determine fetal gender, and private clinics offer curious parents the gender-assessment ultrasounds only after medically necessary ones have already been done.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons is against fetal gender determination for non-medical purposes on the grounds that they may violate the principle of equity between males and females and may set a precedent for "eugenic decisions that are socially repugnant."
Doctors want to know fetal sex in the case of multiple pregnancies and when they may suspect genetic conditions affecting either sex. Women undergoing ultrasounds at Lions Gate and Richmond General hospitals will not be asked to pay if the gender information is pertinent to genetic and other medical conditions.
Adrian Dix, NDP health critic, said in an interview that he's against the new hospital fee because it's akin to "shaking someone down for money. Isn't it like holding information hostage for the sake of money?" he said.
Sun Health Issues Reporter
pfayerman@vancouversun.com


Read more: 

New OK law empowers women

Lisa J. Billy a Republican, is a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

USA Today

First things first: Yes, I am unashamedly pro-life. And I am a mother and a proud Chickasaw and Choctaw Native American. I know the real-world problems that too often confront women, especially poor minorities, in our society.

For women facing an unplanned pregnancy, there is often a sense of panic, distress and fear that can lead to hasty decisions.

That is why I authored House Bill 2780, which requires that women be given information obtained from an ultrasound before an abortion is performed.

Many clinics already perform ultrasounds before abortions — something they have acknowledged in legal filings  but women have told me over the past 20 years that they have not had access to that information.

Women should have the choice to see that image. I have personally visited with women who obtained an abortion in a panic and were devastated years later to see a friend's ultrasound and realize: That child is the same age as my baby when ... It is a devastating moment of intense sorrow and regret.

I filed this bill to empower women, no matter what their circumstance, to have as much information as possible before making a life-altering decision.

The new law requires that all women have an ultrasound, be shown the screen, though they can avert their eyes, and that the doctor describe to them what organs and heart activity the screen shows.

Individuals who argue women are too fragile to face the reality of abortion and make an informed decision do not respect women. The image of a baby on an ultrasound provides amazing clarity of thought. What was seen as a closed door suddenly becomes a world of endless possibilities.

Critics say the state should stay out of this issue, but I believe turning a blind eye to women in need is inexcusable, and preventing them from receiving accurate medical information is true cruelty.

It appears the pro-choice movement believes it is a tragedy only if a woman exercises her informed right to not have an abortion, but they have no problem maintaining barriers to informed consent that will leave women emotionally shattered for the rest of their lives once they learn the truth.

Pro-lifers do not fear modern technology. Why is it that pro-choicers can't say the same thing?

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