If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
Frankly, this is akin to emotional blackmail and seeks to put already-emotionally wrought women into a guilt trip. What if the ultrasound test is considered not enough? Would they be subjected to watching baby massacres? William Saletan puts the issue in perspective:
If I were a legislator, I’d offer four amendments to any ultrasound bill. First, the government should pick up the tab. Second, the woman should also be offered a six-hour videotape of a screaming 1-year-old. Third, any juror deliberating whether to issue a death sentence should be offered the chance to view an execution. Fourth, anyone buying meat should be offered the chance to watch video from a slaughterhouse. If my first amendment passed but the others failed, I’d still vote for the bill.
Making a (fiscally) conservative government pay for “social services” might just be the death knell of such a bill. But then with the moral high ground that such legislators hold, their fondness for running up the deficit, and departure from traditional conservative values, you never know. Hundred percent of the taxpayers would be paying for enforcing moral values of less than fifty percent of the voters. Remember that all citizens are taxpayers (or legally expected to be) but not all citizens are voters.
by Patrix | on Tuesday, May 1st, 2007 at 11:19 am | 
Current Affairs, Governance, Law, Politicking, United States . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:24 am reply
I was amazed to see partial-birth abortion bill upheld by the court.The bill has no medical clause for women!! And the pro-lifers find that OK! But I seem to expect this White House to actually care about women - which is expecting it to understand that the war is lost.
But getting an ultrasound in the first trimester?? how is that going to help? I really don’t think looking at a speck of cells is going to lessen the guilt. Most women are traumatized by the decision. This is stupid.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 am reply
Sakshi, I was surprised by the refusal to consider the health of the mother in making this decision. This personal account is proof enough that such cases exist. But you are mistaken about the guilt part. The pro-lifers do not want to lessen the guilt but in fact, they want to increase it so that it keeps women from having abortions. Now just imagine the plight of the parent-child relationship when the mother was guilted into having that child.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:41 pm reply
Great article. I would only add one item to your bill, and then would co-sponsor it if you would give me that honor. Every Pro-Life voter in the USA would be required to view a 4 hour video of unwanted children being neglected, abused, or otherwise mistreated. They would then have to be certified to have work 100 hours of community service in an orphanage telling the children how they saved their lives so that they could live in overcrowded conditions, where their chances of being adopted as toddlers or school age children are slim to poor. Then, and only then, can they force a woman to view her ultrasound. Now putting away my soapbox.
Rick
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm reply
Rick, I find it strange how pro-lifers base their arguments on emotional ground and also when they say they are pro-life, they really mean pro-human-life or even pro-American-human-life. If only they put this much effort into saving lives in the cause of the Iraq war or Darfur.