Lunch Break: Bachmann’s Heartbeat Informed Consent Act
by LauraLoo
Congresswoman Bachmann explains the importance of her new bipartisan legislation, the Heartbeat Informed Consent Act, which empowers women to make an informed decision regarding themselves and their unborn child. The bill places a simple requirement on abortion providers by requiring them to make the unborn child’s heartbeat visible through ultrasound, describe the baby’s cardiac activity and make the heartbeat audible, if the child is old enough for it to be detectable.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxxp6wrp7ag[/youtube]
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
[HT: Uploaded by RepMicheleBachmann]
Oct.24, 2011 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!!!!! Information is what pregnant girls and women should have before they make this irrevocable decision. Many will choose to carry to term. Those who don’t are apt to exercise more care in the future to ensure against an unplanned pregnancy.
A desperate hail mary attempt at winning over Iowa primary voters. It’s nice to know she’s using her legislative powers responsibly.
Love it!
Carla says:
October 24, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Love it!
(Denise) Carla, people consider me “pro-abort” but don’t you think full, complete information about what the embryo or fetus looks like — as well as info about heartbeat and brain activity — will motivate many with problem pregnancies to decide to carry to term?
There is no reason to force women to see or hear anything related to the fetus which she has chosen to have removed other than to convince her to carry the pregnancy to term. Health care providers should not be in the business of trying to convince their patients to change their minds about any surgical procedure. The only obligation is to inform them of the risks of said surgery. These types of legislation only underscore the belief, in the pro-choice community, that women need to be guilt tripped in order to not have an abortion. That the anti-choice community would resort to these actions also seems to show that the anti-choice movement has contempt for women as they will stop at nothing to shame them.
CC says:
October 24, 2011 at 3:39 pm
There is no reason to force women to see or hear anything related to the fetus which she has chosen to have removed other than to convince her to carry the pregnancy to term. Health care providers should not be in the business of trying to convince their patients to change their minds about any surgical procedure. The only obligation is to inform them of the risks of said surgery. These types of legislation only underscore the belief, in the pro-choice community, that women need to be guilt tripped in order to not have an abortion. That the anti-choice community would resort to these actions also seems to show that the anti-choice movement has contempt for women as they will stop at nothing to shame them.
(Denise) This doesn’t “shame” but inform. Abortion isn’t like other surgeries and girls and women ought to know exactly what they are doing when they abort.
I NEVER would have had an abortion if I had been given the facts and been fully informed. No shame involved in receiving the truth. And please know that the “Well, that is just YOU, Carla.” argument falls flat on its face. I am not alone in wishing I had known the truth.
Which is why CC and other proaborts are against ANY info given to women about their baby. It’s $$$ walking out the door. :( God forbid a woman CHANGE her mind once she hears the heartbeat of her child.
If you are prochoice on abortion you are proabortion. One choice. Abortion.
Bachmann’s Heartbeat Informed Consent Act
BHICA…. Just missed out on the “BOHICA” thing. ;)
Who pays for it?
Guess.
At first somewhat troll-like thoughts come to me. It just seems so lame that we have to start at this level. Would we allow a food item with the warning that there’s a 50 / 50 chance you will die?
But then, as Carla and others have said, more information is better than none. The sound of another heartbeat doesn’t seem to faze these “health professionals” in wanting to stop it. But it at least brings home to the rest of us the - dare I say it it? REALITY of the situation.
Doug and Ex-GOP,
Money well spent, in my book. Fret about the money spent on “procedures” that kill at least one of the two patients, why don’t you?
Doug – it was actually a legitimate question – so many things that I thought should be paid for (basic health care, life saving care), I’ve heard people argue should NOT be paid for by taxpayers – so I wanted to know if this was paid by taxpayers, would only be paid for if the person had insurance – maybe they would bill a local church. Who pays for it?
Too early in the morning – I meant “Hans” – it was a legitimate question.
Information is neutral, folks. What is so threatening about finding out more information? It helps a woman make a MORE INFORMED decision. It EMPOWERS women. That’s good, right?
I guess you wouldn’t think it was necessarily good if it knocks your position flad on its face. Abortion is murder. The more we know (and see and hear), the clearer this becomes.
People against more information aren’t pro-choice. They’re pro-DEATH.
Ex-GOP,
Sure it’s a legitimate question. Life-saving care has always been mandated. EMTs don’t check out financial status before doing their duty. Basic health care is different. What about basic nutrition? Basic lawn care? There gets a point where private sources should be encouraged, not Big Daddy Government.
I’m confused Hans – so who are you saying should pay for it? Is this basic care that the government should cover, or should this only be covered by folks with insurance? Or are you saying that this should not be mandatory?
Ex-GOP,
Well, we have to pay for it for now. I’m just saying we have to start going down the road of “letting it die on the vine” as Gingrich said some years back. He didn’t mean whacking away at entitlements willy-nilly, but fostering an economy where the “welfare state” wouldn’t have to grow.
And cracking down on waste and fraud in the meantime would help.