Mich. Governor to Sign Ultrasound Bill

[Rose Siding]

LANSING, Mich. -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm will sign a bill requiring abortion providers to give pregnant women the option to see ultrasound images of their fetuses, a spokeswoman says.

Granholm generally has opposed anti-abortion legislation, but the bill was amended so it no longer requires pregnant women to see the ultrasound images, spokeswoman Liz Boyd said Sunday.

Until now, Michigan law has required that women seeking abortions be allowed to review diagrams and descriptions showing a developing fetus, but not their own.

Abortion opponents hailed the new law. Right to Life of Michigan said it ensures that pregnant women have fuller access to accurate information before having abortions.

Critics called it a further erosion of women's rights...........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001095.html

[Squatch]

1. It's optional, right?

So, what, exactly, does this law do?

[xultar]

3. Make the procedures more expensive so women wont' have them?

Stoopid law.

[Squatch]

4. I can't figure it out.

[etherealtruth]

6. Bingo

My feeling is that many women who seek abortions are doing so for financial reasons in the first place.

I can NOT fathom why Granholm is signing this ... ?!?

[Squatch]

8. Political pressure

[etherealtruth]

9. You think?

O8)

[jbnow]

12. No extra expense if

you don't take the option. If it is optional and someone wants an abortion I can't imagine many taking up the option to have the ultra sound.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. It requires abortion providers to

"give pregnant women the option to see ultrasound images of their fetuses." Apperently until now they were not required to do so.

[Zynx]

2. What the hell?

This is one of the dumbest things I've seen the pro-lifers propose yet.

[etherealtruth]

7. Why is my DEM governor ...

...signing this garbage????

[Demeter]

18. Probably So It Dies of Its Own Unwieldy Weight, Cost and Inconsistency

She loses nothing by it, and DeVos gains nothing.

[etherealtruth]

21. She loses nothing and Devos gains nothing ...

... with this I agree.

My concern is that poor and LMC women, barely able to afford an abortion, cannot tolerate the extra cost ... whether they view the ultrasound or not.

[rpannier]

33. As far as I can tell...

If you don't opt to use it there should be no extra expense.
It seems trivial to me. But, I live and work in a country where the doctor is prohibited from telling either parent the gender of the child and abortions are heavily restricted by the government.

[etherealtruth]

39. No, it doesn't sound trivial to me ....

Though I am pro choice (in a very Clintonesque way) ... I have very deep reservations about abortions being sought solely due to the gender of a child (the Punjab and Gujarat in India come to mind)

[sarcasmo]

20. I thought the same thing when I read this in the Detroit paper.

This must be a trade off for something down the road.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

5. Seeing a bouncing blob of genetic mutation would affirm the decision.

As many stories as we here about unwed pregnant teens and abortion, I fear that overturning Roe will also greatly impact the lives of women forced to be host organisms to genetic malformations.

If I were ever in that situation, and I saw an ultrasound confirming the diagnosis of an 'incompatible with life' fetus, I would feel affirmation at terminating that pregnancy.

[Demeter]

19. Unlikely At 12 Weeks To Have Visible Defects

Ultrasound is an echo, not a picture.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

22. I am well aware of ultrasound technique

And yes, anencephaly, for instance, would be clearly visible at 12 wks.

[eyesroll]

10. What's unclear is whether this bill requires the woman HAVE an ultrasound.

If she is required to undergo (and pay for) the ultrasound (although she'd have the right to decline to see the images), then yes, that puts up an additional time and money barrier and that's unacceptable.

But if clinic providers say: "If you'd like, we can do an ultrasound and you can see pictures of your developing fetus," I don't have a problem with that, as long as the woman can decline without further problem. Medically accurate information about fetal development is more informed consent-ish, as far as I'm concerned.

I guess, though, the decision to offer an ultrasound should be up to the provider, though, and not the state. The state, last I checked, doesn't tell my doctor she needs to show me x-rays or ultrasounds before I have other elective surgery.

[LiberalinNC]

11. Since abortions are generally extremely early in a pregnancy, chances

are the woman will have no idea what she is looking at, heck I've had 3 kids and when I first say the picture on the screen I had no idea what the hell I was looking at. It is a stupid law that will only add costs to the procedure; which will probably prove to be worthless.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

23. Exactly. Even into the second trimester, it can very difficult to

distinguish the fetus in an ultrasound.

MKJ

[Lars39]

13. There's a fundie program to buy ultra-sound equipment for their clinics.

I'd wonder if this isn't a boondoggle to re-direct faith-based funds to these clinics.

According to this article, ultra-sound might not be entirely without risk:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/med/ultrasound-echographie_e.html

[Chovexani]

14. How long before it becomes required?

This is a bullshit law and I agree that it's probably a scam for faith-based dollars.

I wonder how long before American women can go to Canada and apply for asylum based on our gender?

[NastyRiffraff]

15. I am SICK AND TIRED

...of the government, urged on by fundies, treating women like little children. If a woman wants an ultrasound, she's perfectly capable of ASKING for it.

It sounds like this law was the governor's just shrugging his shoulders, rolling his eyes, signing a useless law, and telling the fundies:

Here. HAPPY NOW?

[llmart]

17. Our governor is a she.

Just saying:)

[saigon68]

25. She may be a SHE but she is an idiot

Fuck the Fundies We have a few here. They are idiots who want to remake the world in their own twisted vision.

When I need to go to a Doctor I don't want an education. I want my problem fixed.

END OF DISCUSSION

[NastyRiffraff]

29. Ah, sorry, so she is :)

I shouldn't post when I'm in a rage about utter stupidity, whether it comes from a man or a woman.

[HockeyMom]

16. They will LIE

I went on a few Right to Life sites. What they purported to show a 3 week old EMBYRO (not fetus yet)was in actuallity an 8 week old FETUS. As a mother of two, I spent enough time sitting in my OB/GYN's office looking at those pictures to know the differnce bettwen what an embyro and a fetus looks like. Unfortunately, a scared 19 year old won't know the differnce.

Incidentially, I did see my sonograph of my 5 week old ectopic pregancy. NOTHING THERE. Just a big, bloody mess. No little head, no little arms, etc.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Why would the abortion provider lie?

What would they have to gain by doing that?

[HuffleClaw]

24. geeze. she SHOULD have exercised the veto.

what a sham, just one more degree in that slippery slope.

[Duer 157099]

26. What I see at issue here is burden to providers

Perhaps there are clinics that specialize only in this procedure, and perhaps they don't have the full-time staff or equipment to perform this procedure (ultrasound)? I realize that it seems logical that anyone who would provide an abortion also has this equipment, but there might be nuances involved whereby the provider is actually additionally burdened by this law, thus reducing the number of providers?

[niyad]

27. Until now, I had a bit of respect for her--but in signing this, she is

acquiescing in the not-so-subtle BS of the pro-forced birth anti-choicers that women are so stupid, so gullible, so lacking in awareness, that they are not capable of making an informed decision about THEIR OWN BODIES.

BS BS BS BS BS BS

[Kailassa]

28. This happenened to a friend of mine.

She already had one child, and we had seen that baby on ultasound at about 10 weeks. It had arms and legs, and looked incredibly cute.

Later on she got pregnant a 2nd time and had to have an abortion, as, apart from the fact that it was rape, she had just got a job and got her 1st child off to school, and looked like making a life for herself and her daughter, and couldn't handle going back to square one financially and facing the harsh criticisms that fundies dole out to single mothers any longer.

So I took her to a clinic. She only had to wait a couple of days for the appointment, and it was well done and government funded, (Australia), and was not too bad an experience.

Back to the point, in this clinic everyone gets ultrasound as part of the proceedure, just so the doctor can do it as safely as possible. My friend was told what they were doing, but only shown after she asked to be. As it was, what she saw was a huge relief to her, as there was nothing recognisably human about the fetus as this early stage (about 3 weeks) at all.

Seeing that there was nothing to see was a great weight off her mind, after worrying it might be well formed as her baby had been when she had seen it.

[depakid]

30. When didn't they have the option?

Question is, who's going to pay for it?

The far right just disgusts me. The sooner that they're relegated back to the fringe, the sooner Americans will have some semblance of RATIONAL healthcare policy in this country.

What a waste of time.

[Erika]

31. Exactly. The far right wing thinks women are dumb

As if women weren't aware of their own bodies and reproduction.

[skipos]

32. I am not getting what is so bad about this.

I don't see what is good about it either, but I don't see the harm in giving someone the "option" to do anything, as long as it isn't costing them anything. Maybe I am missing something, feel free to tell me. :shrug:

[rpannier]

34. I agree with you.

It seems to me the law is just providing more information. To me it's kind of like receiving all the information possible for any other medical procedure.

[Moosepoop]

35. This doesn't change anything, really.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060321/OPINION04/603210318/1072/OPINION

Letters to the editor
Nothing worth headlines in ultrasound bill

March 21, 2006

As the leader of the pro choice forces in the Michigan House of Representatives for 14 years and as a party to the negotiations on the ultrasound bill recently passed, I was stunned a bill that does absolutely nothing would warrant a front-page headline ("Granholm agrees to abortion regulation: Bill to add ultrasounds to the rules," March 20).

When the bill was originally introduced, a woman who chose to terminate her pregnancy would be required to have an ultrasound, an opportunity to watch it and to take the picture home. The governor's office made it clear that bill would be vetoed. Right to Life of Michigan asked for language she would accept. Several pro-choice organizations and I provided the amendatory language that ultimately passed: Doing the ultrasound is solely up to the doctor, viewing it and taking home a picture is completely optional -- no different from current law.

So there is no reason for the governor to veto the bill, and I am appalled that you would misinform your readers with a banner headline and story that suggests otherwise.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has always maintained that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. To that end, she has supported legislation and instituted programs that provide more women access to birth control, knowing that the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. She has also vetoed legislation that would diminish reproductive rights established by Roe v. Wade. Granholm has been steadfast on supporting reproductive rights and quality health care for the women of Michigan.

Maxine Berman

Michigan House, 1983-1996

Director of Special Projects

Also, the bill does not make ultrasound mandatory, nor does it necessarily add to the cost of an abortion for the woman.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060219/POLITICS/602190384/1022

<snip>
Rewritten House Bill 4446 no longer mandates ultrasound.
It allows a physician to decide whether an ultrasound is needed and, if so, to make the ultrasound image available for viewing by the patient. Ultrasound has become common in the monitoring of fetal development during pregnancy.

<snip>
Besides compelling doctors to give women the opportunity to view ultrasounds, the bill requires the state health department to list on its Web site the names of health care providers offering to perform free ultrasounds.

[skipos]

36. EVERYONE WHO IS COMPLAINING SHOULD READ THE ABOVE POST

I am no expert on law, but it sure seems like DUers are forming the circular firing squad for no reason on this.