Stop looking in the womb! And don’t listen to the heartbeat! There’s nothing in there but a blob of tissue! That’s all! Move along. Nothing to see here.
As us anti-science troglodyte conservative types embrace 21st century technology, liberals are desperate to drag women back into the dark ages by not allowing them to know what (or who?!) is growing inside of them.
CMR loves standing up for women’s rights. Yup. That’s how we roll. We’re all feministy like that. Patrick even used to cry at Little House on the Prairie episodes as a show of solidarity with women -at least that’s why he said he was crying.
Life News reports
A Fargo, North Dakota abortion business has filed a lawsuit to stop women from having the ability to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before the have an abortion. Gov. John Hoeven signed the measure into law in May after the state House easily approved the ultrasound measure.
The House backed House Bill 1371, on a strongly bipartisan 77-9 vote in February and the Senate signed off on the bill in April. The measure is designed to help women learn the humanity of their unborn child and to consider abortion alternatives.
While most abortion businesses do an ultrasound before an abortion is done on a woman and her unborn child, that doesn’t mean the mother will have a chance to see it. Rep. Bette Grande, a Republican sponsoring House Bill 1371, hopes the bill changes that.
However, the Red River Women’s Clinic, the only abortion business in the state, filed a lawsuit to stop the law from taking effect on August 1.
With help from the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion legal group, the abortion center is asking for a temporary injunction against the ultrasound measure.
The law requires that a woman seeking an abortion be offered the opportunity to see an ultrasound of her unborn child and hear the fetal heartbeat, which can begin as early as eighteen days after fertilization.
Red River claims the law is confusing and would limit a woman’s ability to get an abortion. It also claims allowing a woman to hear the heartbeat of her baby is inconsistent with best medical practices and claims the cost of the equipment is too burdensome.
Can you imagine fighting against women knowing what’s going on in their bodies? Seriously, what other issue except abortion would cause this kind of madness?
Let’s accept their premises for a moment that pregnancy is a women’s health care issue like any other. Could you imagine if a woman went to a doctor complaining of headaches and “women’s advocates” fought to have the results of CT Scans hidden from women. They wouldn’t be seen as pro-woman, would they? They’d be seen as insane. But because it’s not about appendectomies or headaches and it’s only about killing babies then they’re viewed as perfectly sane and champions of women’s rights.
I also love how these “women’s advocates” say that’s it’s “too confusing” for the woman. What’s confusing? Do they think women are idiots and so easily confused? And when I’m confused I often seek more evidence. Wouldn’t a nice picture clear things up quite nicely?
HT Pewsitter
July 27, 2009 at 3:11 am
I think it could be another form of judicial activism. I suspect that future lawsuits might ask the govt. to suspend implementing pro-life laws b/c they're "too confusing".
July 27, 2009 at 3:42 am
Hey, makes perfect sense. It is certainly confusing to let a mother hear a heartbeat or see movement. She could get really confused – is that a lump of inanimate tissue in there? Or a baby human being – my baby.
Can't have that sort of stuff. Just give them the firm answer. As Matthew says, "nothing to see [or hear] here; move along."
My mind's made up; don't confuse me with facts.
July 27, 2009 at 5:36 am
Wait, that thing the nurse used so I could listen to my kid's heart beat was basically a cassette recorder with a microphone– just the mic didn't have any holes in it, since it just gets pressed against the stomach.
There's some for under seventy bucks…..
July 27, 2009 at 5:37 am
I live about 1 hour from this "clinic" and am familiar with them from our pro-life activities such as 40 days for life etc.
I just wanted to clarify what the dispute is supposedly about as the article you have here does sound rather confusing vs everything we are hearing locally. There was an article in our local paper that defines what they are actually suing for: http://www.wahpetondailynews.com/articles/2009/07/25/breaking_news/doc4a6b290ccbcf4561589502.txt
It seems the issue they find confusing is the wording in the bill. Here is the exerpt from the article in our local paper:
"The center’s statement says the law requires an audible fetal heartbeat consistent with “standard medical practice in the community.” It says there is no standard medical practice for the provision of fetal heart tone in abortion services and says the cost of equipment needed to listen to the fetal heart would be too high."
Regardless I think it's a cheap attempt to try and keep quite the dirty little secret that it's not just a clump of cells they are scraping out of your body. I also find it hard to believe that non-profit crisis pregnancy centers in our area can afford this equipment but these abortion clinics can't….right…Our state has taken some good steps here with plans of more to come. I hope we are able to follow through. Thank you for supporting us in this fight!
July 27, 2009 at 5:38 am
Correction, Thirty one dollars, plus shipping. Gel extra.
Wow, that's gonna break the bank?
Maybe, if women respond like I did– something like "wow…his heart is beating so fast and solid…."
July 27, 2009 at 6:31 am
The cost factor is a red herring. A 4D ultrasound machine goes for about $130,000. & 1 newly openned pregnancy center here in IA got it from the company for $41,000. Not exactly a bank breaker. & as pointed out, there are all kinds of home monitors for a very low price. & an article on WebMD talks about how it is a normal practice.
July 27, 2009 at 11:02 am
I wish that law was in every state.
July 27, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Well, to be fair, using the doppler heart monitor does take practice and training and time… after all, those babies tend to run when they hear it coming!
(Wait… a lump of cells on the run? As if it has a mind of it's own? That's just creepy!)
I wonder what they say when they GET the heartbeat? "Congratulations, Ma'am–your baby's alive–so we can kill him!"
And what about those cases where the baby's already dead? Would they tell the mom, or just go ahead with the abortion to get the $$$?
July 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Part of me wants to laugh at the sheer stupidity and absurdity of it all (especially with the comparison you've made of headaches and not being allowed to see the CT results) and the other part of me wants to cry from the stupidity and absurdity of it all.
And the feminists have always cried about wanting to be thought of as intelligent and THIS is the type of legislation they want to support? Legislation that clearly shows patting women on the head while condescendingly telling them "Don't worry, we'll take care of this for you. Don't you worry your pretty little head off." Uggg…
July 27, 2009 at 2:30 pm
We could take the example of the woman who sold cakes to pay her mortgage. We could all bake Its-Not-A-Blob Cookies to raise the $600 the clinic will need for a doppler. http://www.babybeat.com
July 27, 2009 at 6:38 pm
The thing is "abortion" is nothing but an emotional issue. There is no logic assigned to it, since logic dictates the foetus is a human being in its early stages. The more science investigates this, the more logic will dictate this reality. There is no room for any alternative scientific stance here. So, the only way to thwart logic is through pure emotion, substituting science with emotional concepts such as "rights" (i.e. "right to choose").
It's the same lack of science you hear about regarding "overpopulation". You will here the left whine and point to "all the starving people in the world" to justify their stance, totally contradicting the scientific evidence that a) there is actually a surpluss of food in the world that could easily feed twice the current population of 6 billion b) while there are twice as many people as there were in 1970 when 37% of the population sufferend from malnutrition, now roughly 17% of the population suffer from it.
Make no mistake that this is still too high a number. But it does fly in the face of those who say we are overpopulated. This is just not the case.
July 27, 2009 at 6:41 pm
*blink*
Wow. That's a first. An anon post that says abortion is all about emotion– and correctly identifies which side is talking science.
Hat's off.
July 27, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Apparently you are easily amuzed then. Next time I'll shake my car keys in front of you. That should really get your motor running.
Bill
July 27, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Foxfier,
You knew anonymous couldn't stay nice for long.
July 27, 2009 at 7:02 pm
*shrug*
The little boy that's so piss-poor at insulting, I can ignore– he's no dumber than the college kids that set the pickup on fire by my apartment building, although less effective in apparent goals.
I've got to give props to something as unusual as a correct identification of where established science and morality stands, though.