The Virginia House of Delegates approved a revised version of a bill requiring a woman to have an ultrasound and be offered the chance to see the image before having an abortion.
Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia, said she was disappointed that the bill was amended but applauded the passage of the legislation, which she described as “essential” to the pro-life cause.
The altered bill, which states that a woman must receive an external, transabdominal ultrasound before an abortion, passed by a vote of 65-32 on Feb. 22.
The initial legislation was amended to exclude the requirement for an internal, transvaginal ultrasound after Gov. Bob McDonnell indicated that he would not otherwise support it.
McDonnell, who may be a possible competitor for the GOP vice-presidential candidate, is known for his commitment to life issues during his time in elected office.
“I believe deeply in the sanctity of innocent human life and believe governments have a duty to protect human life,” he said in a Feb. 22 statement.
However, he said that he had concerns about requiring women to undergo “an invasive procedure.”
The governor acknowledged that determining the gestational age of the fetus is “essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.”
But he said that, in most cases, an “external, transabdominal ultrasound” is sufficient to determine the unborn baby’s age.
He asked the General Assembly to amend the legislation “to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily.” He requested that the bill state that only an external ultrasound will be required.
McDonnell’s statement came as a surprise to many pro-life advocates, as he had previously indicated that he would sign the original bill.
Critics of the amendment argued that the original bill had not actually mandated internal ultrasounds because it had not specified what type of ultrasound must be performed.
They suggested that the distinction between types of ultrasounds was an attempt to fight the bill’s real purpose, which they see as ensuring that a woman “be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion.”
Cobb said that she is disappointed, especially given “the strong pro-life credentials of this governor and the fact that both chambers of the General Assembly have already passed this bill.”
However, she added, “the passage of an ultrasound bill is essential to advancing a culture of life in Virginia.”
She explained that the Family Foundation has ceased its opposition to the amendment because it believes that failing to pass a timely ultrasound bill would be worse than passing the amended bill.
The ultrasound legislation, which will now move back to the state Senate, is one of several bills being considered by the current Virginia Legislature, which is strongly pro-life.
Other laws that are being considered include a bill that would allow civil wrongful death lawsuits to include the death of an unborn child and another providing that “unborn children at every stage of development” enjoy the rights and privileges of other persons in Virginia.
Jimmy Akin: VIDEO: Unborn babies struggle in womb!
Comments
Post a Comment
Why all the fuss over the amendment? I don’t think any woman seeking an abortion should be subjected to a transvaginal ultrasound just to satisfy a bunch of pro-lifers. Unfortunately, this article is full of medical falsities that are misleading. For instance, if you’re looking to date the “fetus”, you have to wait until the 11th week of pregnancy (9 weeks from conception). Otherwise, you are attempting to date an embryo, which is much trickier. At 5 weeks (3 weeks from conception), the embryo is about a quarter of a centimetre long. Dating ultrasounds usually don’t occur until week 8 - that’s a long time to make a woman wait for a procedure. And you can try to compare this more “informative” approach to a doctor showing a patient their tumor before they remove it, but in that scenario, the doctor would not make the woman wait 8 weeks… The Catholic church isn’t pro-life, it’s just pro-birth.
hmmm, I wonder really why the Family Foundation ceased its opposition to the ammendment. I understand that planned parenthood requires a vaginal ultrasound prior to abortions, anyway…
Lifenews.com says that Planned Parenthood ROUTINELY does these ultrasounds before an abortion. What’s new? Fetal age has to be determined, whether or not the mother chooses to see her baby. It’s standard practice.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/24/mcdonnell-cuccinnelli-brought-up-ultrasound-legal-issues/
“Alana Goodman of Commentary magazine says Planned Parenthood provides the following on a telephone hotline:
“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.
Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.’”
Once again, main stream media shows it’s true colors, not reporting the whole truth.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.