Opinion Talk

By kimberly

January 19, 2006 10:36 PM | Link to this

This decision is between the patient and the doctor of her choosing, regarding the medical procedure with which they, NOT YOU, decide to proceed.

By Lynne

January 20, 2006 01:21 AM | Link to this

Once again we have that bastion of deep thinkers, the state mis-legislature, to thank for this question.

The only possible answer is NO.

Most states do not issue a death certificate for a neonatal death before 20 weeks. After the 20 week marker, a fetal death certificate is issued, usually as a combined birth and death file.

Just from the legal standpoint, without the emotional or political arguements, it would seem the state has already declared a framework for establishing legal life.

It may not make everyone happy on either side, but the recognition of a marker might at least offer the bonus of shutting down the politically righteous.

Wouldn’t these lawmakers and their constituents be better served if they concentrated on our bad air, roads or maybe even political corruption?

By candide

January 20, 2006 06:58 AM | Link to this

The only real question is whether society has rights over a woman who is pregnant. I confess I do not know the answer.

By Paul Gregory

January 20, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

No.

By Bradley G

January 20, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this

I think it is a waste of time and money. Regardless of the result of either test, Pro-Choice advocates will still work to protect the “rights” of the mother, while Pro-Life advocates will continue to support the “right” to life.

By Lyrazel

January 20, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

Yeah? And WHO is going to pay for it? Taxpayers!

Many women who get abortions do so because they cannot afford more-any children! Many of these 18-25 year old single women have no health insurance—many will just default on paying this mandatory sonogram bill (Typical cost of sonogram to uninsured recipient in hospital runs $600+)—thus medical facilities will charge the STATE to re-coup the loss of revenue! Who is going to pay for this feel good legislation? Guess who—GEORGIA TAXPAYERS, so expect higher insurance costs and higher medical bills along with an increase in state and local taxes.

Why cant this cruel and misguided GA legislature take initiative to care for the million living babies who need decent homes, decent schools, adoptive parents? Why cant they spend the money they will waste enforcing an unnecessary medical procedure on programs that might help the children out there now? Job services, affordable housing, public transportation—medical care for uninsured—all things that GA really needs!

With so many recent cuts to all health service to children and families, to hospitals shifting care for uninsured to State taxpayers— this legislation clearly shows Republican Legislators prying into lives where they are not welcome. What happened to Republican cries of fiscal responsibility and LESS government?

The fact many rural communities in GA do not have practicing OB/GYN doctors should be the priority that these legislators should be looking into if they want to get involved with womens reproductive medicine!

By Logical Dude

January 20, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

Should ultrasounds or sonograms be required before a woman gets an abortion??? Nope!

Not because of pro- or anti- abortion reasons, but for financial reasons. Who is going to pay for all these ultrasounds and sonograms? The woman? In many cases, she has scraped the bottom of the barrel just to come up with the money to pay for the abortion, let alone a sonogram. And if she has the baby, can’t afford to keep it anyway.

If it on the taxpayers, where will the new tax dollars come from? Actually, what other services will suffer so that this new service can be offered?

No, anti-abortion legislation should find a different means that using up more of my tax money on a losing cause.

By NotMyProblem

January 20, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Yes, they should. If a woman is making a decision to kill the baby inside her, the least she can do is take a look at the tiny life she’s about to extinguish. Maybe the reality of what she’s doing will set in and she’ll think twice. Maybe she won’t. But at least she’ll be informed about the fact that there’s a heartbeat and, depending on the length of the pregnancy, probably arms, legs, eyes, a face and a moving child inside her, and she’s making a concious decision to terminate that life.

By Mara

January 20, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

What purpose would it serve? It’s merely one more hoop that anti-choice activists want to force women to jump through in order to recieve healthcare. It goes right along with the 24-48 hour waiting period, the misleading literature and lecture funded and written by the “pro-fetus” lobby, the nit-picking “corridor width” requirements, and all the other obstacles these people use to impede a womans right to have an abortion. It has nothing to do with actually providing competent health care and everything to do with intimidation.

By Jack Waldrop

January 20, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

We absolutely should pass legislation requiring that expetant mothers view sonograms prior to the decision to have an abortion.

By Peggy Collins

January 20, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

I am in support of Senate Bill 429 which would require that a pregnant woman desiring an abortion would be “offered” and opportunity to view the image of her unborn child. The only change I would like to see is that the woman be “required” to view the image of her unborn child before she has an abortion. I think the reality of the image will impact the number of abortions and help women get in touch with the reality of their decision and the resulting guilt from those decisions.

Peggy Collins

By Brian Curtis

January 20, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Ooh, I’ve got an even better idea! Before they can have an abortion, make them sign a form acknowledging that they’re evil and will burn in Heck for all eternity.

Then demand an upfront copayment of $5,000 and a 10-day waiting period. Oh, and make sure you publish their names and addresses so people can call them at home and say, “Jesus loves you and he’s going to kill you.”

That, plus the 1000-meter footrace and the timed crossword puzzle, should be satisfactory “medical” precautions before going ahead with the procedure.

Sheesh, how transparent can you anti-choice wackos GET?

By Susan Fletcher

January 20, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

I strongly feel that a woman should have to have a sonogram or ultrasound before having an abortion.
At the age of 18 I had an abortion. I am certain that I would not have done it if I had done an ultrasound or sonogram.
Since becoming a Christian, I realize that human life begins at conception and it is not right for a woman to take a human life.

By Dan

January 20, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Hard to comment on any broad brush approach I did find Lynn’s comment interesting regarding the 20 week line, it does seem to set a legal precedent if in fact it is a law. I am kind of with Candide’s response but from the other side. The question is not the woman’s rights, but the baby’s. That is actually the base reasoning for Roe vs. Wade. The inability given accepted medical knowledge (over 30 years ago) to designate the point of life. When that point is reached both individuals rights must be considered equally.

By Mike Patterson

January 20, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

I think the Ultra Sound bill is a great bill. People who do not want to know what they are destroying are a danger to this society. Anyone who has had the opportunity to be born and would deny someone else that right is not a true American and can in no way be a Christian. With God’s help I hope it passes quickly.

By Carol

January 21, 2006 07:28 AM | Link to this

How about we take the money that would be used for these ultrasounds, and instead spend it on measures that actually prevent unintended pregnancies. Expanding access to birth control and comprehensive sex education would actually prevent the need for many abortions. Now THAT’s pro-life!

By Nancy Stith

January 21, 2006 08:00 AM | Link to this

Of course. When you break your arm, the doctor shows you an x-ray on how he is going to fix it. For an abortion, you should be offered an opportunity to see what is going on inside.

By Jennifer Mason

January 21, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

The choice to abort a pregnancy is one of the most gut-wrenching, guilt-ridden decisions a woman can make. It is NOT a choice that brings contentment to a pregnant woman, but it is a choice that she has every right to make about her and her unborn child’s future.

Requiring an ultrasound or sonogram prior to an abortion constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment of a woman who has made a horrible yet necessary choice. She should NOT be forced to suffer anymore humiliation or horror than she already feels.

By Michelle

January 21, 2006 10:08 PM | Link to this

I am SO tired of those people for whom God is a tryant trying to smother me with their fear. I and I alone will answer to my maker when my time comes. Let people make their own choices and quit trying to legislate your personal morality to the world.

By Julie

January 22, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Unless those making the anti-abortion laws are willing to SUPPORT/ADOPT the unwanted children born to unprepared women, they need to shut up and let each woman decide for herself. I stopped practicing my Catholic faith because I could not tolerate some man in Rome telling women that they HAD to HAVE THEIR CHILD although he was not going to help them take care of nor support the children. (unless it is his)

Who does he think he is — GOD or something?

By Romarti

January 22, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

I don’t see why not have an ultrasound. It would seem that neocons are all about personal responsibility until you disagree with them. The millions of women globally who have fallen ill or sterile from illegal abotions don’t count. My aunt who’s currently sterile from a coat hanger in 1970 doesn’t count. The most important thing is to model ourselves after a middle eastern theocracy. A select few clergy will decide what is moral, then the government will pass the law, and those of other beliefs will either assimilate or be jailed.

By Likewhatever

January 22, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

I’d like to propose Senate Bill 429 1/2. This would mandate that the BabyDaddy be present at the sonogram or ultrasound and also to demonstrate how to properly use a condom. He would then be required to place life-size cardboard cutouts of Nancy Schaefer in his bedroom, car, or any other location where he would be likely to impregnate a woman. That certainly oughta cut down the number of abortions.

By Ruben Goff

January 23, 2006 05:41 PM | Link to this

Yes, they should. Since the understanding is that no living being is inside of the pregnant woman, allow science to prove it. If it is, then allow her heart to make a decision from that point. To deny the use of an ultra-sound would only mean one thing: fear of actual pregnancy and the denial of the responsibility that comes with reality. Women cannot get pregnant alone, men should definitely be apart of this process. They, too, are just as responsible for the life of the child.

By frank

January 24, 2006 06:05 AM | Link to this

Let’s pass a law that requires the man responsible for impregnating the woman be required by law, have a vascetomy, at the same time the woman is under going her abortion.

By Van

January 24, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Gee, I thought a former First Lady had the right idea - Just say NO! - seems like this would solve the majority of the problem.

Responsible behavior would reduce the need of a woman to have an abortion - that is responsible behavior on both the he’s and she’s.

By Lou

January 24, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

The last few comments seem to have some merit — get the men responsible for the pregnancy to sit with the woman and view the sonogram. The right-to-lifers are beating on what they view as the weakest point in this mess — the guilt and vulnerability of the pregnant woman. What a coward’s way out. REQUIRE the man to be involved in this insulting, degrading process and vasectomies will be more commonplace. Encourage this bill but with an amendment - and that is that both dna sources have to watch the sonogram. If the man falls apart after watching this, then let him agree to care for the baby once it has been born. The problem with both pro-choice and pro-lifers is that they have not included the male clowns that indiscriminately leave their sperm and by their inaction - leave the women they impregnate to deal with the consequences. Am I the only one that sees this is wrong? Let’s start a website that posts the pictures of men who impregnate women - and, then leave them to deal with the consequences.

By David Patton

January 24, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Let’s see — the woman already knows she’s pregnant, so making her get an ultrasound or sonogram just adds to the expense of ending the pregnancy, and draws out what is already an emotionally painful decision. Since the conservatives don’t want sex education taught to kids, and they don’t want contraception easily available, but they DO favor the death penalty, I guess it’s all just a matter of timing to them.

By Van

January 24, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this

David Patton, I guess from your comments, that you believe abortion is a valid form of birth control. A very expensive form of birth control.

As a conservative, I find that sex education belongs in the home, and parents that do not teach it, are depriving their children of good advice.

As to the availability of contraceptives, they have been cheaply available for over 100 years, and one method has been proven to be 100% effective.

Regarding the comparison of abortion and the death penalty - there is none. I hate it when ignorant people try to bring these two items together. Listen carefully, I will write this slowly so you will understand. One is the penalty handed down by a court of law for certain crimes. The other is used as a form of birth control. There is no comparison.

While I do agree there is a place for abortion as a medical procedure, the abuse of the process is what I consider immoral. Like all medical procedures, there is a reason, place and time for its use. Like all things moderation is the key.

By Dan

January 24, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

Yeah because since we have been teaching sex ed in schools unwanted pregnancies have plummeted. Please!!! “Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them. Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional?, 1993”

By DavidL

January 24, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Requiring the involvement of the father will only add logistic difficulty and more expense - if the father is unknown, DNA testing is expensive.

Even though all the financial arguments above make a very good case against the bill, they’re beside the point. This issue is about personal privacy.

The government has no right making decisions of this nature.

It’s not the government’s choice to decide if a woman has a child or not. It’s her body, her choice.

If you’re against abortion, don’t have one. It’s that simple.

By Jane

January 24, 2006 10:24 PM | Link to this

Of course we should require it. Here’s an even better idea, let’s require that a woman have an ultrasound before she has sex. That way if she is ovulatory the state can step in and require her to sign a consent beforehand committing her to carry a pregnancy to term should she become pregnant. And of course, if she is using any contraceptives, she should be required to stop because if that poor pitiful little egg should become fertilized than a birth control pill MIGHT keep that tiny little potential boy or girl from implanting in the uterus and besides, God would be very angry if we wasted any sacred sperm.

By Christie Sanders

January 25, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this

I can’t believe some of these people! How can they say that having the woman view the sonogram of her child before aborting it is being cruel and inhumane to the woman? She is making the decision to kill her child rather than take advantage of other opportunities available to her. Viewing the sonogram is just showing her the real truth of what she is doing - causing the cruel and inhumane death of her child. I have a great deal of sympathy for those women who find themselves pregnant - unwed and/or financially unable to handle a child, or pregnant by rape or incest. This does not though give anyone license to wipe out a life. And to those of you who have mentioned the death penalty - get a clue. The death penalty is given to those in our society who have proven that they cannot exist peacefully in our society. They have committed acts so atrocious that they are being removed from society for the good of society. Abortion is killing an innocent, peaceful baby who has done nothing more than inconvenience the woman who has the misfortune to carry him/her. Standing for abortion is standing for the wholesale murder of our future.

By Angie

January 25, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Absolutely!!! 100% for this legislation. Long overdue as well.

For those that say they are “pro-choice” let me ask you-wouldn’t you say that abortion should be used as a LAST RESORT? Wouldn’t you say that every other option should be used before choosing an abortion? Well if that’s the case then what can it hurt to require a woman to see an ultrasound. Hey, it just may result in FEWER abortions. (That’s a GOOD thing in yout eyes right???? Because it sure is in mine!)

Most people would be surprised to learn how quickly fetus’ develop. A beating heart at 4 weeks! And if seeing an ultrasound makes a woman change her mind about an abortion then maybe it will also save her from a lifetime of deep regret.

I believe in FULLY INFORMED choices. Something pro-choicers apparently do NOT believe in. Give the woman every chance to change her mind for God’s sake! Ending a life-the life of YOUR CHILD is SERIOUS! Have the waiting period, have the ultrasound, have counseling, etc…Let’s make sure the woman has ALL the facts before having the child killed.

By M.C.

January 25, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Pro choice huh? Go ahead and finish the sentence, baby killers…

A woman’s right to choose….to commit murder.

By rob

January 25, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

I hope none of you eat eggs. That’s chicken abortions for the pro-life crowd. If you claim a “respect for all life.” Animals are god’s creatures also.

By Van

January 25, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

rob, just one question, do you equate human life with a chickens life?

Are you saying that, we as humankind, are worth no more than chickenkind?

How pitiful.

By JohnnyBoy

January 25, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

I think we have the wrong idea. Instead of aborting unborn fetuses we should wait until they’re 13, 14 and 15; by then we’ll know how they’re gonna turn out. If we have kids who talk back, fight their parents, do drugs, steal, refuse to go to school, join gangs, and curse out grown people—these kids obviously need to be aborted. We should just tell them, “Hey, I’m taking you down to the abortion clinic tomorrow, I see right now you are turning out to be trouble”. Think of the money we’d save on appeals from Death Row!! And of the cost of housing criminals for years and years!!

By Susie

January 25, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Actually, Rob, an egg that you buy in the grocery store is nothing of the sort. That egg has never been fertilized, so therefore there’s no baby chick to “abort.”

It’s no different than me ovulating every month, and the egg passing through my system and dissolving away. There was no baby there, and there’s no baby chick in a grocery store egg.

By Shari

January 25, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

Expanding access to birth control?? Anyone can walk into any health department and get free birth control, no questions asked. I did, at the age of 16, because I wanted to be responsible. I now have three (planned) children.

I would never have an abortion. I believe it’s wrong. But who am I to tell someone else what they can or can’t do? My problem is with these twits who use abortions as birth control. There’s no excuse for that, when anyone in this country can get free birth control.

By Puppet, Please!

January 26, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

First of all I do believe that a woman’s body is her own and she can do with it what she wants, including having an abortion. If she does not want the child, I don’t want her to have it either. I do, however, believe that this is a life and death decision and should be considered very carefully and carries severe reprecussions. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she obviously does not take reponsibility for her body because unless she was raped or mentally deficient she knew that becoming pregnant was a possibility when she had sex. For these people who care so little for life and are so irresponsible as to put themselves in this position I say that you should be allowed the abortion as long as you consent to have your tubes tied during the procedure. This would eliminate a woman from getting in this situation again and also provide sufficient deterrent to those who are having the abortion as a convenience. Most studies show that the majority of abortions are to low income women who really don’t have the ability or finances to properly care for a child. We as a society should not sentence a child to such an existence as this perpetuates the cycle of poverty and child cruelty. It is also incumbent upon us a society to curb the barbaric practice of aborting growing human fetus’ in any way that we can as well. If you feel differently I challenge you to watch PBS’ extraordinary documentary on the development of the human fetus “The Miracle of Life” and maintain your position that the fetus is an unfeeling lump of tissue. A woman’s life is important and we as a society should have compassion on those that make mistakes but we should also recognize the inherant immorality of terminating the life that resides within the womb. A balance must be struck and one that benefits us all.

By Brian Curtis

January 27, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

(quote) “anyone in this country can get free birth control.”

Unless the pharmacist exercises his ‘freedom of religion’ to deny it to you, of course.

By Susie

January 27, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Hi Puppet Please…I am sort of a contradiction. I am “pro life,” as in I don’t ever want to have an abortion, and barring a medical emergency, wouldn’t have one…but I’m pro choice, also. Because it’s my CHOICE never to have an abortion. I always want it to be my CHOICE, and I want others to have the choice to do what’s right for them also.

As for the forced sterilization, the only problem with that is, I don’t think it’s right to force a 19 or 20 year old college student who knows she can’t raise a child to give up the rest of her child bearing years. There will come a time in the next 10+ years that she will likely want to have a family, and I can’t see punishing her forever, for making a mistake.

By Laurie

January 31, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

This is an outrage. Government has no business whatsoever mandating medical procedures. Whatever procedures take place or not prior to a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy is between her and her doctor.

When they introduce a bill mandating vasectemies to dead beat dads and when every last member of the General Assembly obtains a medical degree, perhaps then they would be somewhat qualified to dictate what types of medical procedures women should receive.

Where is the ACLU here?? Is this bill not a violation of a multitude of constitutional rights? How about the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments, just to name a few?