Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Violation by Ultrasound: Not Just Physical
While there has been much fury recently over Virginia’s recently proposed transvaginal ultrasound bill, other states’ anti-choice lawmakers have chosen the equally unacceptable route of psychological—rather than physical—violation of women.
In Michigan, House Bill 4433 would expand the state’s already-present requirements for pre-abortion ultrasounds. If passed (a likely outcome in Michigan’s strongly anti-choice state government) the law will require pre-abortion ultrasounds to be conducted with the “most technologically advanced ultrasound equipment available,” further defined as the equipment which “is capable of providing the most visibly clear image of the gross anatomical development of the fetus and the most audible fetal heartbeat.” While the bill states that a woman be given the “option” to view the ultrasound or not, it also mandates that the monitors must be turned toward the woman, so that her only way of not viewing the image is to close her eyes or turn her head away. The bill also requires that the professional performing the ultrasound give a detailed description of the fetus’ current developmental stage, and must offer the woman a printed ultrasound image.
Clearly, even if reasonable arguments could be made in favor of medical benefits to a physician viewing a more detailed ultrasound image before performing an abortion, there is no medical benefit to be gained by forcing the patient to view such images. It would be impossible to read this bill as anything other than a transparent attempt to convince women not to go through with abortions. And it aims to enact such coercion by relying on an essentialist view of women and “motherhood:” the notion that women will be emotionally moved to continue a pregnancy if they are forced to see the fetus and hear a detailed report of its development.
Women who have made the choice to obtain an abortion are well aware of the choice they have made. They are not naïve to the fact that they are choosing to abort a developing fetus. Whether the decision has been an easy or a difficult one, it has not been made in ignorance of what “abortion” entails. And it is not the place of the state to patronize women by insisting that they be forced to view ultrasound images in order to fully understand their actions.
Requiring transvaginal ultrasounds would violate women by invading their bodies. Turning an ultrasound monitor toward a woman and attempting to force her to view the images even if she does not want to see them is an act of emotional and psychological violation. Both are medically unnecessary and needlessly cruel and patronizing. And neither should ever be mandated by a state’s government.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


53 Comments so far
Show AllI believe in full disclosure.
While I can only assume (I'm a man) that women who go in for an abortion realize the gravity of what is about to happen, I can not disagree totally with the use of an ultrasound to deter those who may want to use abortion as a form of birth control. However, as a believer in full disclosure, I feel all children in religious instruction (regardless of the religion) should be taught about the atrocities committed by their brethren over the centuries so that they too, will know what they are getting into.
They will have the option of looking away and putting their hands over their ears, but the reality of religious intolerance and slaughter in the name of a "god" must be disclosed, lest history be repeated.
"However, as a believer in full disclosure, I feel all children in religious instruction (regardless of the religion) should be taught about the atrocities committed by their brethren over the centuries ... the reality of religious intolerance and slaughter in the name of a "god" must be disclosed, lest history be repeated."
A noble suggestion. There is a problem however, and this is with those who errantly crie "separation of Church and State". They will never allow such teaching unless it falsifies history. You see, to be true to history such teaching would need to compare the genocides committed by atheistic governments, such as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin et al to those committed by "religion". The atheistic regimes would certainly not come out looking good. Then the teaching would need to compare religion with religion, not just on the surface, but their teachings and whether their adherents follow these. It would compare the abomination of the (greatly exaggerated) Roman Catholic Inquisitions (not a Christian organisation or belief but Babylonian from the Confessional to Purgatory) with the results of the Reformation and Protestantism. To do this it would also need to look very closely at doctrine, the teachings of Christ and His Apostles and compare those with "churches" and organisations today who masquerade as "christian", such as the "Word of Faith", "Name it and Claim it" people.
You would have to compare, "Take up your cross and follow Me" with "Get your Rolls Royce out and come with me".
No, I don't think that will ever be allowed. But good try!
Scenario:
1) A woman enters an abortion clinic and has a probe inserted into her vagina to enable her to view the life she is about to extinguish.
2) The same woman affirms her intent, and devices are inserted yet deeper into her - into her very womb - to chemically burn the baby or pull him/her limb from limb inflicting torture and death on the baby.
Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the insertion of the probe at (1) "violate[s] women by invading their bodies", is "fanatically anti-female", "an act of emotional and psychological violation" while the second insertion at (2), ie to KILL the baby was no violation (even if the baby is female) and is perfectly acceptable?