“For crying out loud, you want them to have full information”
We had a lady testify, her name was CarolValium. She goes in. She’s crying through the procedure. She told her, don’t worry, it’s a blob of tissue, you’re doing the right thing, get it over with quick.
She goes home and lives with this day after day after day after day. The rest of her life she lives with this trauma. And it’s time for that to end. It’s time for women to know the facts. It’s time for them to know what they’re carrying in their womb and what they’re doing….
If you have a loved one that’s thinking about terminating their pregnancy, for crying out loud, you want them to have full information. You want them to have an ultrasound. You want them to know what’s going on in that womb and what they’re doing and that they’re not going to be able to change that for the rest of their life. They make that decision; it’s over. It’s over in a few minutes and then later on they can live with the fact that they terminated their pregnancy and it was the best thing for them; or they killed their child and they made a horrific decision and they regret it and they wish they never would have done it. And for those that want that information and wish that they never would have done it, that’s what Sonia’s law is about.
~ Republican, pro-life, Wisconsin state Senator Mary Lazich, pictured above, in a floor debate on a bill requiring mothers to have ultrasounds before their abortions, June 12, as quoted by GlennBeck.com. The measure passed along party lines after a shouting match erupted, then passed in the House, and is now headed to the desk of Governor Scott Walker, who is is expected to sign it.
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.
I can so identify with this. Had I been aware of fetal development maybe my child would be here today. I was told to “get over it” and all I could do is cry over the loss of the “blob” I was carrying. Of course I never got over it. Nothing in this world is more unnatural than a mother killing her baby.
Just wondering if anybody knows how the ultrasound laws are typically implemented. I’ve read a couple of articles and, according to the bill, the woman can deny receiving the results. Does that mean that they do the ultrasound, but then never talk about it? Or are there separate results after the ultrasound? Also, who typically pays?
Senator Vinehout is a schmuck and Senator Lazich is awesome. So glad this passed and those who dissented should be ashamed of themselves.
Ex-GOP, it’s my understanding that it varies from state-to-state, depending on rigidity of the state’s law. Some require that the tech/doc explain in anatomical terms what they are seeing, as my doctor did the other day during my 20wk sonogram, ie, “Here’s the heartbeat, there’s the brain… torso… stomach… leg” etc. Others only require that they provide the ultrasound, and give the mother the option of how to react, ie “Do you want to see or would you rather we turn the screen away?” And then the most information the mother might be given would be, “According to the results, you’re about 10 weeks pregnant” or whathaveyou.
Just to add to MaryRose’s good response, it is already standard practice for abortion clinics to preform an ultrasound prior to an abortion for a few important medical reasons: 1)to confirm a pregnancy 2)To confirm it is intrauterine & not ectopic 3)To establish gestational age of the pregnancy and 4)to check for uterine abnormalities. And the ultrasound is usually either included in the abortion fee or tacked on, but what informed consent laws do is, as MaryRose explained above, is to inform women of fetal development/age of their pregnancy & give them the opportunity to see their ultrasound.
Lisa, I’m sorry for your loss. LL <3
Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!!!!! Forced Information is on its way! And it will radically decrease abortions!
Lisa @ 11:01 AM – I’m sorry for your loss, and for believing the lies. If you haven’t attended a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat, please consider doing so. It can provide hope and much needed spiritual perspective.
Denise –
I’m looking for research on this – is the decrease on the ultrasound laws a gut feeling, or based on research? Just wondering.
Thanks,
@ Ex-GOP: I’ve read that 80% of women who are shown ultrasounds decide not to abort.
You can only uphold a lie for so long. I know this is the era of the low-information voter, but you can’t totally escape the information we’re bombarded with every day.
I’ve always wondered what it must be like for some woman to channel surf and come upon film of a six or seven-week, clearly human baby moving about like a Mexican jumping bean, with the knowledge that she had aborted her child when he or she was a week or two older.
The proaborts are up in arms here in Wisconsin.
I just tell ’em: Don’t like ultrasounds? Don’t have one.
Denise- so, forced information…would that be the kind of information a doc gives you just before any surgical procedure? Now why would they want you to have all…that…information? Oh yeah, to be properly informed of exactly what is being done so their patient can make a true and accurately informed choice. Wouldn’t want to leave them in the dark and regret their decision later, now would we?
Forced information- that’s about as stupid of an idea/comment as saying vaginal ultasounds are identical to rape. Only a pro-abort would think like that.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers have ultrasound machines, comfy exam chairs, and large screens so the mother can see the whole ultrasound. We are convinced that the living ultrasound is the single most powerful tool for helping to the mother to see the humanity of her child.
The CPC’s offer safe harbor, healthcare, money & material support, parenting skill training, welfare benefits assistance, etc.. Everything a woman needs. But the ultrasound is the heart-changer.
Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the ultrasound requirement. PP already has the equipment. They already do the procedure. Why not show it to the mother??? — because the mother will probably change her mind. That’s why.
Normally this is called INFORMED CONSENT. You know, because you are FULLY INFORMED. PP knows that if women are fully informed they are much less likely to fork over cold, hard cash to have their babies killed.
Great news!
Dirtdartwife says:
June 15, 2013 at 8:39 pm
Denise- so, forced information…would that be the kind of information a doc gives you just before any surgical procedure? Now why would they want you to have all…that…information? Oh yeah, to be properly informed of exactly what is being done so their patient can make a true and accurately informed choice. Wouldn’t want to leave them in the dark and regret their decision later, now would we? Forced information- that’s about as stupid of an idea/comment as saying vaginal ultasounds are identical to rape. Only a pro-abort would think like that.
(Denise) I am strongly in favor of this information being forced on girls and women seeking abortions.
My friend had an abortion. during a later pregnancy (that she decided to carry to term) she was SHOCKED to see her baby moving and waving at her during a 12 week scan. She never knew the child she aborted could also move.
I ask the clinic escorts that every week at Planned Parenthood. Are you going to be there to counsel and comfort these women when they carry later, “wanted” children to term and see ultrasounds and realize the baby they killed today was just as human? Are you going to be there for the rest of these women’s lives to shield them from the reality of what they have done today? You shield them from our words of truth today but you won’t be able to shield them from truth forever. And better to learn the truth BEFORE the abortion than after when it is too late.
I kind of wish my state of Wisconsin had just banend abortion – passed a similar law to the one in SD and let it go to the Supremes. The more I’m reading, the more I’m seeing that these ultrasound laws don’t really do much (statistically speaking) – though there doesn’t seem to be tons of data on it.
Yeah, individual women and children aren’t important, it’s all about the statistics. Pfft. Spoken like a pro-abort.
Lrning – that might be the most illogical, odd thing I’ve seen anybody say in a while here.
So essentially, you are arguing that it doesn’t matter if a law actually does any good, and actually saves any lives – what, you just care about the window dressing? The appearance of doing something?
Again – my argument was I wished they had just outlawed abortion because what I’m seeing is that the ultrasound laws don’t seem to actually save babies.
So you’re argument is that I guess I’m a pro-abort because I’d rather ban abortion, and to be an upright pro-lifer such as yourself, I should root for lesser laws even if they don’t work.
Yep, you are hoping WI follows in SD footsteps on an abortion ban because you love how successful that was in saving lives.
I’m arguing that the ultrasound laws may never show statistical results, since stats on abortion are a voluntary joke, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t effective. Actual individual women have already spoken on the impact ultrasound made in their abortion decision. That is enough. Especially considering ultrasound is already part of most abortions, the women just aren’t privy to the information the abortion clinic has collected via it.
So you think the SD law was a mistake?
SD is a pro-life state. Wisconsin politicians are not sufficiently convinced or courageous enough to challenge the status quo of Roe v. Wade.
Wisconsin legislators mostly want to keep abortion legal for those who desperately want it…. but recently, they have come to realize that women are being given the hard-sell by Planned Parenthood. This law is merely bringing PP up to the expectation that women will be fully informed before the abortion, and that the expected levels of safety and sanitation will be maintained.
There is nothing courageous or extreme about this law. We’re no South Dakota.
“I kind of wish my state of Wisconsin had just banend abortion – passed a similar law to the one in SD and let it go to the Supremes.”
So you have reason to believe the current court would overturn Roe?
The fact that the proaborts so hate this ultrasound law leads me to believe it will save some lives so at least there’s that.
It has also brought more attention to the humanity of the preborn which is always a good thing.
I kind of wish my state of Wisconsin had just banend abortion
I kind of wish someone had just tarred and feathered me.
JDC – No idea – but I know that either way (the laws passed, or a SD law) is going through the courts anyway – so if you’re going to swing, swing big.
“either way (the laws passed, or a SD law) is going through the courts anyway – so if you’re going to swing, swing big.”
But what if one honestly believes that the court is likely to uphold minor restrictions but not an absolute ban? I mean, is it not better to swing for something you might actually get?
JDC – tough call – based on the mixed results of bills around the country, nothing is a sure thing.
“JDC – tough call – based on the mixed results of bills around the country, nothing is a sure thing.”
True. To be honest, when it come to taking things to the supremes, my feeling is that the best bet is not an absolute ban or ultrasound law. I feel that with the current court, the best thing would be for one of these twenty week bans to reach them. Even if there’re not willing to overturn Roe, they may be willing to put stricter limits on late-term abortions, given that America’s current regime on them is very permissive.
If every female is forced to see what she is doing when she aborts, the number of abortions will drastically decrease.
Onward WI!! Whoop!!
I know there are others on this blog from WI! ::high fives them all::
Women are not FORCED to see the ultrasound as I understand this legislation. All I have ever read is women have to be asked if they would like to SEE the ultrasound. They can refuse.
A cervix is opened by force. A baby is forcibly torn apart. That is force.
We are talking about informed consent.
What I want to know is………..who enforces this legislation? There is going to be someone at the mills making sure that women see the truth?
“What I want to know is………..who enforces this legislation?”
Good question. While we’re at it, who enforces all other abortion restrictions/regulations? Do we just trust the abortionists?
There are states where women are required to see the ultrasound and hear a description of it. Ohio HB 200 in the current Ohio general assembly is an example. This is a good thing. Why deny that there are states that have laws where the woman has to see the ultrasound and hear a description.
Feel free to read the ultrasound if you don’t believe me. I’m sure you can find the text on Ohio Right To Life’s website. Be proud of legislation like this, don’t be ashamed of it.
Not sure who you are talking to Allyson.
I was more or less speaking of the FORCED INFORMATION that one commenter made.
Since I am from WI I will say that I am PROUD of it and PROUD of those that worked tirelessly to get it passed!! So not ashamed.
Some post abortive friends of mine testified. I was unable to do so.
Maybe next time!!
JDC,
Trust the abortionists?
Like they trust women? :)
They seem to feel they are above the law!!
“Like they trust women? :)”
LOL, I didn’t even make that connection when I typed that. :)
The proaborts in Wisconsin refer to this as “anti-abortion” legislation because they know it will keep some women from aborting their children.