NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070428/LOCAL/704280365/-1/news

House OKs bill requiring waiting time, ultrasound before abortions

The Associated Press

April 28. 2007 6:01AM

TALLAHASSEE - A woman seeking an abortion in Florida would have to wait 24 hours before going through with it under a bill passed Friday by the state House. The measure could also make it more likely that she would see an ultrasound image of the fetus before undergoing the procedure.

The House may be as far as that idea goes this year, however, with the waiting period and the effort to require more pre-abortion ultrasounds unlikely to be accepted by the Senate.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Trey Traviesa, R-Orlando, would require abortion providers perform ultrasounds before almost all abortions, instead of just those in the second or third trimesters as required by current law.

Viewing the images would be optional, but women would have to sign waivers stating they declined the doctors' offers to do so.

The bill (HB 1497) passed 71-42, mostly along party lines with Republicans in favor.

The 24-hour waiting period and ultrasound sections of the bill were tacked onto what had started out as a less controversial measure that was meant to help judges make decisions in cases in which a minor is seeking to have an abortion without notifying her parents.

Florida's parental notice law allows a girl to have an abortion without telling her parents by getting a judge to approve it. But judges have said it's a difficult decision they sometimes aren't equipped to make. Originally, the bill had only sought to assign special guardians in those cases to help judges determine what was in the best interest of the girl seeking the abortion.

House Republicans who oppose abortion added the waiting period and ultrasound requirements, saying there was nothing wrong with trying to make women think seriously before undergoing such a serious procedure.

Several pointed out that government calls for waiting periods or allows time to back out of a decision on a number of things - from buying a gun to joining a health club to carrying out the death penalty. State law even allows people three days to back out of an encyclopedia purchase, one lawmaker noted.

"It doesn't do anything to take away women's right to choose,'' said Rep. Kevin Ambler, R-Lutz. "What it does do is put in place a thoughtful and deliberative process to think it through.''

The proposal drew the ire of abortion rights supporters. Rep. Kelly Skidmore said it was insulting that those pushing the bill thought women wouldn't deliberate the decision on their own. "It suggests that I would be so cavalier in coming to the decision to terminate a pregnancy that I should go back home and think it over, as if I were out shopping and walked by a clinic and decided to pop in for an abortion,'' said Skidmore, D-Boca Raton. "What an outrage.''

The Senate hasn't considered either the waiting period or the ultrasound idea, and even backers of the proposal have acknowledged the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, which is a generally more moderate body.

The Senate could still pass the bill to put special guardians into the notification process, but the two versions of the bills would have to be worked out before anything becomes law.
So what does everyone think? Has the Florida legislature gone too far?

Personally, I can't say that I really object to the measure; the bolded point above indicates that viewing the ultrasound images would be optional, so at least the government wouldn't be mandating that an emotionally distressed woman who has no other choice than getting an abortion be confronted with the image of her unborn child. If anything, I think that such a law would only assist the women who choose to view the ultrasounds to fully consider whether or not they want to have the procedure done.

Fuck Florida and fuck Texas.
Time to challenge it in court.

the bolded point above indicates that viewing the ultrasound images would be optional, so at least the government wouldn't be mandating that an emotionally distressed woman who has no other choice than getting an abortion be confronted with the image of her unborn child.
It's optional but you have to sign a waiver to turn it down. I bet anything they won't tell you that you have the option to turn it down. It puts a burden on the patient, not the doctor, where it should be.

I'm more upset that my states legislature would waste time on something so useless than I could possibly be at any outcome. I mean, neither allowing the woman to have an abortion nor making her look at a black and white image seem that terrible or significant.

It's the waiting period that's most onerous, though the extra cost of the ultrasound will cause more poor women to be unable to get abortions. I hope the article is right, and that the state senate will keep it from getting to the governor.

Ugh, what a bunch of sickos.

You know what this reminds me of? That scene in "Perdido Street Station" by China Mieville which is...nevermind probably too gruesome to be posted in summary (It's not actually gruesome, it's just a disturbing image. It's not like bloody or anything, just...deeply, deeply disturbing. It's an instance of Remaking, which people who read the book might be able to link to this topic...)

Well, at least it's optional.

I don't see a problem with it. With the ultrasound part, that is...not the waiting part. That seems like unnecessary time-wasting that will complicate things rather than help.

I don't see a problem with it. With the ultrasound part, that is...not the waiting part. That seems like unnecessary time-wasting that will complicate things rather than help.
It's the additional cost, as I said above, that bothers me. Poor women are the ones who are most likely to be cut off from access to abortion as it is, and the addition of a waiting period (time out of work) and an unnecessary and costly ultrasound just add to the burden. Maybe if the legislature were adding benefits like free contraception and free child-care to the bill, then I could be convinced that they gave a shit about children, but this is just another case of wanting to control women.

ok the only problem i see is that quite frankly this is an attempt to cause these women to form an emotional attachment to the fetus. by showing her the picture the right to life crowd are basicly playing with these womens emotions. this could in fact cause more problems later on, especially if these women have the procedure. now as to the whole issue its junk anyway because i bet you you will see thepro life and pro choice crowds switching sides when they finally prove that gays are born that way(sorry to those who may not beleave that). then lets see what people think of this issue when its the life of a whole minority group on the line. I will bet you you will see the religious right lined up to have abortions. this is one of the few issues that needs real strickt regulations placed upon. I mean most of you must realize that its not just about the woman. we need to have serrious discussions on this subject without the politicians stiring up both sides. in fact the discussions should pretty much leave anyone out who has real strong beleafs as to whether this should or should not be legal. and all of the ramifications must be addressed and regulated.

I know, we could have a bill that mandates that pictures of dead Iraqi civilians be posted at all gas stations.

You could sign a waiver and have the option to turn it down, of course.

It's the additional cost, as I said above, that bothers me. Poor women are the ones who are most likely to be cut off from access to abortion as it is, and the addition of a waiting period (time out of work) and an unnecessary and costly ultrasound just add to the burden. Maybe if the legislature were adding benefits like free contraception and free child-care to the bill, then I could be convinced that they gave a shit about children, but this is just another case of wanting to control women.

How much do ultrasounds usually cost to do?

It's the additional cost, as I said above, that bothers me. Poor women are the ones who are most likely to be cut off from access to abortion as it is, and the addition of a waiting period (time out of work) and an unnecessary and costly ultrasound just add to the burden. Maybe if the legislature were adding benefits like free contraception and free child-care to the bill, then I could be convinced that they gave a shit about children, but this is just another case of wanting to control women.

Hold on...they're charging the women for this? That's idiotic; if this were free, and they provided other things like you mentioned, it would be a good idea. Otherwise, it's badly flawed.

Simple steps to avoid this crap:

Board Greyhound/Amtrak/airplane/or drive to Georgia/Alabama.

Take care of business.

Fly/drive/bus/train home.

I know, we could have a bill that mandates that pictures of dead Iraqi civilians be posted at all gas stations.

You could sign a waiver and have the option to turn it down, of course.

Actually, I wouldn't mind that. Post some dead American soldiers, some mutilated Iraqis, the WTC being destroyed, poor Nigerians dying from oil-polluted land and water in the Niger delta, the Sudanese being butchered as Chinese oil companies turn a blind eye, ExxonMobil screwing over natives while they ruin the land with oil waste, Saudi women and gays being beaten and stoned,...

Oil is evil stuff. It wouldn't bother me a bit for people to see what they're really doing when they buy gasoline.

Personally, I can't say that I really object to the measure;

Surprise, surprise.

If anything, I think that such a law would only assist the women who choose to view the ultrasounds to fully consider whether or not they want to have the procedure done.

Your paternalistic assumption that women don't already fully consider whether or not they want an abortion is duly noted.

Simple steps to avoid this crap:

Board Greyhound/Amtrak/airplane/or drive to Georgia/Alabama.

Take care of business.

Fly/drive/bus/train home.

Right--because working poor women in south Florida have the money to do that in the first place, and because abortions are so much easier to get in Georgia and Alabama than they are in Florida. Kat, this kind of crap never hurts the middle or upper class woman who needs an abortion, because they can always get doctors who'll do the procedure, call it something else, and no one is the wiser, just like it was in the days pre-Roe. It's the poor woman who's struggling to make it who can't afford another kid who's going to get screwed by this kind of legislation. And frankly, attitudes like yours make it worse, because it assumes that everyone has that kind of access and ability.

Your paternalistic assumption that women don't already fully consider whether or not they want an abortion is duly noted.

Seriously. wtf is it about guys being obsessed with what is in/getting in a woman's reproductive system?

The problem is, of course, from what I've heard (And what is a part of human nature) many woman do have some trouble with not feeling guilty about having an abortion, and seeing an ultrasound isn't going to help.


Also, I'm grateful it's not actually what I thought originally. What I thought originally was the mother was going to have to see ultrasound DURING the abortion...that was why I called the Florida House sickos...

Seriously. wtf is it about guys being obsessed with what is in/getting in a woman's reproductive system?

I suppose it's just what many people do (Intentionally or unintentially), impose their morals on others. And I know that it's not exactly fair to tell guys that they have no say on abortion but they do have to pay child support. An unwanted child is just as much the mother's fault as the father's, in 99% of cases.

Your paternalistic assumption that women don't already fully consider whether or not they want an abortion is duly noted.
Notice how I said "help" them consider, not "force them to consider." There are women who become extremely depressed and regretful after getting an abortion (despite its undoubted status as a jovial time for all parties involved). For those women who choose to see the ultrasound image, it may help them to decide whether or not they can emotionally handle having the procedure done.

this is so dumb. like an abortion isn't hard enough, not to mention the added cost. i hope the florida government enjoys the ramifications.

Actually, I wouldn't mind that. Post some dead American soldiers, some mutilated Iraqis, the WTC being destroyed, poor Nigerians dying from oil-polluted land and water in the Niger delta, the Sudanese being butchered as Chinese oil companies turn a blind eye, ExxonMobil screwing over natives while they ruin the land with oil waste, Saudi women and gays being beaten and stoned,...

Oil is evil stuff. It wouldn't bother me a bit for people to see what they're really doing when they buy gasoline.

It'd bother me. I don't care what morality it is, morality shouldn't be mandated by government-enforced propaganda efforts. Especially not at my tax dollars. I mean why not put pictures of dead people from malpractice at every doctor's office, Colombine photos at every school, and of course, videos of prisoners ass-raping each other on every police car and station? I mean it's not like there's a country to run, let's just spend all our money on propaganda and enforcing it.

It'd bother me. I don't care what morality it is, morality shouldn't be mandated by government-enforced propaganda efforts. Especially not at my tax dollars. I mean why not put pictures of dead people from malpractice at every doctor's office, Colombine photos at every school, and of course, videos of prisoners ass-raping each other on every police car and station? I mean it's not like there's a country to run, let's just spend all our money on propaganda and enforcing it.

Well, that is a good point. There are clearly moral motives behind this legislation; why should legislators be making laws in order to propagate their morals? On a further note, how the hell would this be enforced?

Hold on...they're charging the women for this? That's idiotic; if this were free, and they provided other things like you mentioned, it would be a good idea. Otherwise, it's badly flawed.
One would assume so. I don't imagine that the clinics that handle abortions are going to be able to front the cost of the machines, pay the people to operate them, and not charge for them.

Notice how I said "help" them consider, not "force them to consider."

Yes, your type is always so "helpful" when it comes to deciding what women should do with their own bodies.

There are women who become extremely depressed and regretful after getting an abortion (despite its undoubted status as a jovial time for all parties involved).

A higher percentage of women who give birth become extremely depressed afterwards. What do you propose to end this travesty?

For those women who choose to see the ultrasound image, it may help them to decide whether or not they can emotionally handle having the procedure done.

Cute how you so glibly ignore that being forced to see the image is the default position and that the waiting period itself is an undue burden.

Right--because working poor women in south Florida have the money to do that in the first place, and because abortions are so much easier to get in Georgia and Alabama than they are in Florida. Kat, this kind of crap never hurts the middle or upper class woman who needs an abortion, because they can always get doctors who'll do the procedure, call it something else, and no one is the wiser, just like it was in the days pre-Roe. It's the poor woman who's struggling to make it who can't afford another kid who's going to get screwed by this kind of legislation. And frankly, attitudes like yours make it worse, because it assumes that everyone has that kind of access and ability.

Well, barring blocking or changing the law, what other choice do they have?
I'm not saying it's the best solution, but people can and do hitchhike, get cheap bus tickets (I can get from Chinatown, NY to Baltimore, MD for $20) or walk if they have to.

Hell, I'd contribute to an organization that paid for poor women to be taken across state lines in order to take care of their health needs if their state put obstacles in the way.

There is always a way.

Yes, your type is always so "helpful" when it comes to deciding what women should do with their own bodies.



A higher percentage of women who give birth become extremely depressed afterwards. What do you propose to end this travesty?



Cute how you so glibly ignore that being forced to see the image is the default position and that the waiting period itself is an undue burden.
Oh, Christ. Even if this legislation passes, it does nothing to prevent a woman from getting an abortion. A guys says one thing that doesn't celebrate abortion as the Second Coming of Christ and pro-choice minions go into hysterics. If I hadn't been attacked by pro-life protesters, I'd say your movement is just a tad bit creepy.

Oh, Christ. {snip}

A guys says one thing that doesn't celebrate abortion as the Second Coming of Christ and pro-choice minions go into hysterics. If I hadn't been attacked by pro-life protesters, I'd say your movement is just a tad bit creepy.

LOL. The only one going into hysterics is you. I offered genuine critique of your position and you respond with absurdities.

Even if this legislation passes, it does nothing to prevent a woman from getting an abortion.

Again, you glibly ignore the undue burden being placed on the woman.

It's her body. She shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get a early-term abortion.

Oh, Christ. Even if this legislation passes, it does nothing to prevent a woman from getting an abortion.

That is *obviously* what it INTENDS to do.

It assumes that women "don't know what abortion is" even if they are getting an abortion.

It tries to "teach" those women a lesson.

It hopes to make women re-think such an eeeevil decision. And if not, just increase the cost and bureacratic bullshit involved with the procedure - a standard obstacle where banning is not possible.

A guys says one thing that doesn't celebrate abortion as the Second Coming of Christ

Strawman much?

and pro-choice minions go into hysterics.

I'd be against this silly excuse for a law even if I wasn't pro-choice.

Oh, Christ. Even if this legislation passes, it does nothing to prevent a woman from getting an abortion. A guys says one thing that doesn't celebrate abortion as the Second Coming of Christ and pro-choice minions go into hysterics. If I hadn't been attacked by pro-life protesters, I'd say your movement is just a tad bit creepy.

Unlike yours which seeks to control women?

LOL. The only one going into hysterics is you. I offered genuine critique of your position and you respond with absurdities.



Again, you glibly ignore the undue burden being placed on the woman.

It's her body. She shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get a early-term abortion.
You call a 24-hr. waiting period and an ultrasound "hoops?" Would you prefer that we give her a red carpet entrance to the clinic? I don't support this legislation, but your reasoning is highly flawed and based purely on emotion. There's nothing about having to sit at home/go to work for one more day before getting the procedure done and having an ultrasound which she doesn't even have to view that constitutes an "undue burden."

Well, barring blocking or changing the law, what other choice do they have?
I'm not saying it's the best solution, but people can and do hitchhike, get cheap bus tickets (I can get from Chinatown, NY to Baltimore, MD for $20) or walk if they have to.

Hell, I'd contribute to an organization that paid for poor women to be taken across state lines in order to take care of their health needs if their state put obstacles in the way.

There is always a way.

Well, the first hope is to block the law, which will be up to the State Senate. But we don't act like there's some easy solution in case that doesn't happen no matter what--we have to stick the fact that this will disproportionately harm poor and working class women out there and force people to at least face what they're doing.

That is *obviously* what it INTENDS to do.

It assumes that women "don't know what abortion is" even if they are getting an abortion.

It tries to "teach" those women a lesson.

It hopes to make women re-think such an eeeevil decision. And if not, just increase the cost and bureacratic bullshit involved with the procedure - a standard obstacle where banning is not possible.
I was responding to The Cat-Tribe's argument about it intervening in a woman's right to control her own body. It had nothing to do with the actual effects of the legislation (which, as you have stated, do not do this).

I'd be against this silly excuse for a law even if I wasn't pro-choice.
As I am, but not because it constitues an "undue burden" on women -- because it supports morally-related government propaganda.

You call a 24-hr. waiting period and an ultrasound "hoops?" Would you prefer that we give her a red carpet entrance to the clinic? I don't support this legislation, but your reasoning is highly flawed and based purely on emotion. There's nothing about having to sit at home/go to work for one more day before getting the procedure done and having an ultrasound which she doesn't even have to view that constitutes an "undue burden."

Yes, I call it hoops. Let me clue you in about Florida geography. If you live near one of the major population centers, and by near, I'm talking about a 30 minute drive, you're not bad off, except for having to take an extra day off work--one for the ultrasound/waiting period and one for the procedure, and that assumes you tough it out and don't take any time to recover from the very invasive and painful procedure. It's not like you can walk out and just go back to waiting tables or doing whatever else your job is, after all. But if you live in rural Florida--and there's a lot of it--then you may find yourself having to not only pay to get there, but pay for a hotel room (or sleep in your car, if you have one), plus all the extra time. Yes, those are hoops through which women would be forced to jump should this legislation become law.

You call a 24-hr. waiting period and an ultrasound "hoops?"

Yep. Obviously.

If you have to wait 24 hours and go through unnecessary testing to get basic medical treatment, you are being required to jump through hoops.

Would you prefer that we give her a red carpet entrance to the clinic?

I'd prefer we just stay the fuck out of her business.

I don't support this legislation, but your reasoning is highly flawed and based purely on emotion.

LOL.

For someone who doesn't support this legislation, you appear to be quite emotional in defense of if.

But, pray tell where my reasoning is highly flawed and based purely on emotion. I'm not the one making absurd attacks.

There's nothing about having to sit at home/go to work for one more day before getting the procedure done and having an ultrasound which she doesn't even have to view that constitutes an "undue burden."

Let's see. Is the 24-hour waiting period a burden? Yes. Is the ultrasound a burden? Yes.

Now are these burdens worthy or undue. Well, undue. There is no justification for them. To the contrary, they are arbitrary obstacles.

There you go. "undue burden" QED.

There's nothing about having to sit at home/go to work for one more day before getting the procedure done and having an ultrasound which she doesn't even have to view that constitutes an "undue burden."
That she doesn't have to view if she signs a waiver to that effect. Since when do you sign waivers to not do something? If that doesn't qualify as an undue burden nothing does and we can start charging exhorbent prices for guns because apparently absurd rules arn't an "undue burden." Also, history tells us the chance of them actually telling them they don't have to view the ultrasounds is pretty slim, unless they are required to tell them.

You call a 24-hr. waiting period and an ultrasound "hoops?"

Since the legislation doesn't say that the state would pay for this legislated ultrasound, adding extra costs to the procedure can be called an obstacle. It raises the barrier to those with limited resources. Ultrasounds aren't cheap.

In other words, it's an anti-poor woman legislation.

A higher percentage of women who give birth become extremely depressed afterwards. What do you propose to end this travesty?Really? I find that surprising and frankly hard to believe.

Really? I find that surprising and frankly hard to believe.

Postpartum Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_depression)

Postpartum Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_depression)I didn't read anything in there that suggested this:

A higher percentage of women who give birth become extremely depressed afterwards. Certainly there is a larger number of women who give birth to their babies than those that have their babies aborted in the US thus they would make a much larger percentage of the total amount of people that get depressed.

How much do ultrasounds usually cost to do?Two hundred bucks, give or take.

Certainly there is a larger number of women who give birth to their babies than those that have their babies aborted in the US thus they would make a much larger percentage of the total amount of people that get depressed.

um.....

No surprise coming from the state that considered a (literally) brainless meatbag on life support a living and sentient human being.

No surprise coming from the state that considered a (literally) brainless meatbag on life support a living and sentient human being.

That, and charging people for feeding the homeless... and attempting to pass a law that would allow you to have anything in your car that you could have at home...

... yeah, no surprise. :)

Smile. It confuses people.

That, and charging people for feeding the homeless... and attempting to pass a law that would allow you to have anything in your car that you could have at home...

... yeah, no surprise. :)

Smile. It confuses people.All and all Florida is nice state to live in though. I'm gonna the mature thing(which I should do more often) and remove myself from the debate. I don't think anything can be gained from it except for people getting offended. At the end of the day people who support abortions on demand are still gonna support...surprise abortions on demand, and pro-lifers are still gonna be pro-lifers. Most of our views on these issues are too set in stone to bother debating them anyways.