About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

Ultrasound Bill Not So Sound After All

Pennsylvania's ultrasound bill would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound procedure, after which a photo would be placed within her line of sight. In addition, she would be asked if she'd like to listen to the fetal heartbeat. Obviously, the legislation is intended to make a woman think twice. But instead, the legislature has thought twice, deciding to table the matter.

Here's what the Pennsylvania Clergy for Choice told state legislators:

We Pennsylvania Clergy for Choice urge you to vote NO when HB 1077- the ultrasound bill- comes before the House.

We are clergy of a variety of faith traditions who believe that no legislator with compassion could possibly vote for such a brutal proposal. It is the position of Pennsylvania Clergy for Choice that this deceptive bill with its authoritarian and paternalistic requirements is being proposed for the sole purpose of instilling guilt or shame in an effort to make abortions more difficult, presenting an undue burden for women. It deserves to be rejected by the full House of Representatives. Further it is based on a series of deceptions that we urge you to examine in our following statement.

Orwellian Deceptions on the way to an Ultrasound

In 1949 George Orwell wrote “1984”, a novel illustrated 63 years later when the Pennsylvania House of Representatives crafted HB 1077. This bill, requiring an ultrasound before a woman can have an abortion is classic Orwellian, authored by a privileged Inner Party elite and sold by naming things the opposite of what they are. This paper will explore the bill’s masterful Orwellian deceptions.

DECEPTION # 1, The Title.

HB 1077 is called a woman’s “right to know”, but both the noun “right” and the infinitive “to know” are misleading. The bill does not contain a “right” as used in law and neither does it provide knowledge beyond that obtained by viewing the ultrasound of one’s fetus.

This is an odd and strange bill, a remedy in search of a problem. It proposes to give women a right to view their fetus’ ultrasound, although this right is not now denied. Abortion providers routinely provide an ultrasound to their clients, an inconvenient fact acknowledged by the authors of this bill who try desperately to fashion a mandated right that is not needed.

What is called a “right to know” turns out to be a series of required observations that are demeaning and intimidating. It is immoral and inhuman to impose the bill’s requirements on women. The act treats women as if they are incapable of knowing what is common knowledge. Who does not know that a fetus goes through various stages of development and can be visually represented by an ultrasound?

DECEPTION # 2, The Woman is Not Required to Look.

The inhumane hoops through which a woman must jump begins by the requirement to schedule an ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to an intended abortion. The woman is then positioned physically so she can view the full ultrasound, listen to a heartbeat if present, and have a doctor explain everything that is seen and heard. Of course she doesn’t have to look but not looking requires a very awkward posture. It is as if the legislator is acknowledging that you can lead a horse to water but you can not force the horse to drink. The procedure is a humiliating ritual requiring woman to see, hear and listen and then in pure Orwellian doubletalk the bill states that the woman is not required to look.

Adding insult to injury, the same ritual required 24 hours in advance of an abortion is required again at the time of an abortion. Only this time the legislated requirement is for the image of the ultrasound put in front of the woman is not hers but one provided by the Health Department depicting a fetus that, as near as possible, is the same gestational age as the woman’s fetus. The woman is thus treated like a slow learner who must take the time to see, listen and be told the same facts twice. Moreover, again treating the woman as if she were intellectually daft, the woman must sign the same statement at both ultrasound sittings acknowledging that she is either looking or not looking. We believe HB 1077 should be re- titled “How women are intimidated by an ultrasound when all they want is an abortion.”

DECEPTION # 3, It is No Big Deal

“It is no big deal deal.” wrote a Pennsylvania Representative, an obvious put-down by a male who it is guaranteed will never be confronted by this humiliating treatment. Women on the other hand will very likely find the inconvenience, humiliation and impositions required by this bill to be a big deal indeed. Using language from the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, women will find the provisions of this bill to be an “undue burden” and hence by the wisdom of the Court, unconstitutional.

DECEPTION # 4, Transforming Guilt into “Informed Consent”

HB 1077 rightly states that it is in the interest of the state for a woman to make an informed decision regarding a possible abortion. The bill then asserts that by viewing an ultrasound a woman is in the position of making an informed decision. But that is an Orwellian stretch of the imagination. The only information provided is the gestational age of the fetus. This information is passed off as “informed consent” This one item of information defies the usual meaning of informed consent.

It may be that having an ultrasound presented to her face may experience guilt and regret. But to experience either emotion does not make it a more uninformed decision. A true informed decision involves science-based information coupled with potential moral, financial, social, spiritual and personal considerations. However by the time an abortion decision is made and an appointment established at an abortion provider, the gestation age at that moment is an irrelevant consideration. Contrary to the claim, in this bill there is no information or resources made available by which a woman could make an informed decision regarding her already-scheduled abortion.

DECEPTION # 5, Call It Something Else

In true Orwellian fashion, a fact is called by some other name in order to distort reality and change moral judgment. So in HB 1077 a single definition is erroneously used twice. Fetus is defined as an “unborn child.” For some this may be a distinction without a difference. But both the reality and the language of aborting a fetus has much less emotional baggage than the killing of an unborn child. This manipulation of language is clearly meant to conjured up a moral revulsion against killing babies, an obvious crime. Language matters and the bill deliberately distorts language reflecting its bias. It is a fetus that is being terminated, not an unborn child being murdered. To say otherwise is to reflect a particular religious view of a minority of citizens that is not shared by many other faith traditions and certainly has no place state law.

DECEPTION # 6, Only the State Knows Best.

One of the co-sponsors of HB 1077 made the intent of this bill obvious. He stated, “Someone needs to be supportive of the ‘baby’.” And that, more than a woman’s “right to know,” is what this bill is all about. The state, it turns out, is the someone he believes who must support the fetus in spite of the fact that the State has no constitutional authority to do so at its earliest stages. Throughout history it is the woman and not the tribe, nation or State who has been responsible for the fetus. Women rightly object to the state’s possession of a responsibility that has always been associated with the dignity and meaning of being a mother.

The bill’s co-sponsors assume that when women view the ultrasound of a fetus they will be so moved by the awesome nature of life that they will change their minds and refuse an abortion. But not only is each woman placed in front of an ultrasound screen, wired for sight and sound, without an opportunity to have a spiritual guide or psychological counseling at her side, none of her reasoning for making this decision has changed. George Orwell could hardly have a better illustration of Big Brother at work as she sits confronted and alone with the awesome powers of the state manipulating her emotions.

However, incomprehensibly the State makes four exceptions to the viewing of an ultrasound of one’s fetus; if the fetus is less than eight weeks old, and thus too young for a heart beat, if conceived via rape, incest or the health of the mother is jeopardized. But why these exceptions to a woman’s “right to know”? The fetus bears no responsibility for the circumstances of its conception or for the health of the mother. One fetus with a heartbeat is not significantly different than any other fetus of the same gestational age. If a woman supposedly has a “right to know” why would she not have this same right “infringed” because of her health or the circumstances of conception? The bill is internally inconsistent and morally unsustainable.

DECEPTION # 7 The Bill Treats All Women Equally.

Although it is a constitutional mandate of the state and a requirement of the 14th Amendment to treat all citizens equally, HB 1077 treats women differently in terms of social class. A woman in the middle class may well have advantages of an education, community connections, access to transportation and communication and thereby learning of her pregnancy earlier, securing medical, spiritual and community support, locating an abortion provider and scheduling an abortion and thus be spared the humiliating impact of HB 1077. On the other hand, a poorer woman with access to fewer resources is not as likely to secure an abortion until after eight weeks. Thus the provisions of this act prevail. If HB 1077 is viewed as punitive attempts to reduce abortions then poor women, those less able to raise a child will be disproportionately impacted. If legislators believe HB 1077 is providing information of vital importance, then poor women are disproportionally “blessed.”

It is our responsibility as religious professionals to name these falsehoods that are being instigated by the powerful few against the personal and intimate lives of the many. This bill is morally reprehensible in both its design and purpose. We call on legislators of good conscience to denounce HB 1077 as inappropriate legislation for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

THIS BILL WAS INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE KATHY RAPP AND CO-SPONSORED BY THE FOLLOWING LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES: KULA, TURZAI, STERN, DENLINGER, CUTLER,
ADOLPH, AUMENT, BAKER, BARBIN, BARRAR, BEAR, BENNINGHOFF,
BLOOM, BOBACK, BOYD, BROOKS, R. BROWN, CALTAGIRONE, CAUSER,
CHRISTIANA, CLYMER, COX, CREIGHTON, DAY, DiGIROLAMO, DUNBAR,
ELLIS, EMRICK, EVANKOVICH, J. EVANS, EVERETT, FLECK, GABLER,
GEIST, GIBBONS, GILLEN, GILLESPIE, GINGRICH, GODSHALL, GRELL,
GROVE, HACKETT, HAHN, HARHART, HARKINS, HARRIS, HEFFLEY,
HELM, HENNESSEY, HESS, HICKERNELL, HORNAMAN, HUTCHINSON,
KAUFFMAN, KAVULICH, F. KELLER, KILLION, KNOWLES, KOTIK,
KRIEGER, LAWRENCE, LONGIETTI, MAHONEY, MAJOR, MALONEY,
MARSHALL, MARSICO, MASSER, METCALFE, METZGAR, MICCARELLI,
MICOZZIE, MILLARD, MOUL, MURT, MUSTIO, OBERLANDER, PAYNE,
PEIFER, PERRY, PICKETT, PYLE, QUIGLEY, READSHAW, REED, REESE,
REICHLEY, ROAE, ROCK, SACCONE, SANTONI, SAYLOR, SCAVELLO,
CULVER, SCHRODER, SIMMONS, K. SMITH, S. H. SMITH, SONNEY,
STEVENSON, SWANGER, TALLMAN, TAYLOR, THOMAS, TOBASH, TOEPEL,
TOOHIL, TRUITT, VEREB, VULAKOVICH AND WATSON.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, FROM THIS LIST OF CO-SPONSORS, MARCIA HAHN, JULIE HARHART, AND DOUG REICHLEY ARE FROM THE LEHIGH VALLEY. LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS LEGISLATION.

Tom Foolery said...

Geez Bernie,
Everytime I think I've lost all hoe your sanity, you pull a comeback with articles like this. If you'd just stay off the union subject we'd begin to believe you were almost human..

Tom Foolery said...

Gee, I wish I could type, lol..Everytime I think we lost all hope for your sanity you come up with a piece like this. You might have a twinkle of humanity yet in you.

Anonymous said...

I thought the GOP majorities in harrisburg were going to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. Instead, we can mandatory health testing. Sounds like socialist garb to me.

Anonymous said...

Good bill. These abortion seekers need to think a little harder about what they are about to do!

Bernie O'Hare said...

Tom Foolery, I don't really care what you think. You've demonstrated little capacity for that by your endorsement of a hate blog.

Anonymous said...

Hearts need to change before laws can change. Slavery used to be legal. Negroes were not considered human. Then, they were three-fifths human. Eventually, they were considered fully human. Women had to wait 150 years before they were considered able to make the important decision to vote. Young people's views of abortion are slowly changing. Medical advancements like the remarkable clarity of prenatal imaging the saving of smaller and smaller premature infants are likely why. The original trimester construction of Roe vs. Wade is becoming more difficult to defend, given this. Hearts must change. And they eventually will.

Anonymous said...

This was written by clergy? I wonder if they take the senior citizens in their audience outback after the morning service and put them out of their misery as well.

Of course they wait until after the morning offering.

Scary world

Anonymous said...

Technology has changed since 1979 maybe laws should too.

Anonymous said...

I want my abortions and I want them free!

OBAMA GIRL

Anonymous said...

I assume this blog whole-heartedly supported this bill?

Anonymous said...

Hearts need to change before laws can change.

Um they already did change. In the 1970s. Get over it.

Anonymous said...

Interesting choice to use the world "brutal" to describe someone having to look at ultasound image of a living being.

What word would they choose to describe the act of the scissors piercing the skull of that being? Or the suctioning of the contents of that skull?

CHOICE, of course.

-Clem

Tom Foolery said...

Endorsement of a hate blog..bernie, you have shown nothing but hate for the gracedale supporters and public sector unions..Outside of kasich in Ohio and Walker in Wisconsin, you promote hatred of public employees more than the republican party itself..Dont talk to me about hate blogs when you spend much of your time spewing venom around..

Bernie O'Hare said...

I promote telling the truth about these spoiled brats who are sucking the life blood out of the rest of us. You can go bray on the hate blogs of people who are obviously deranged and who are cowards as well. You've told me all I need to know about you.

Bernie O'Hare said...

"I assume this blog whole-heartedly supported this bill?"

Not a chance.

Anonymous said...

"Who does not know that a fetus goes through various stages of development and can be visually represented by an ultrasound?"

Probably the same people who Google, "Can my dog get me pregnant?"

Anonymous said...

So your Okay with this even when a women has been raped she needs to go through this testing?? WTF! This is soo stupid asking a lady that went through such trama to ask her for this? YOUR CRAZY!

Anonymous said...

I winder what percentage of woman are raped? I would think the far majority of these woman have not been. As usual we have to have rules bend to the few. That makes no sense. I would hope they just would not look at the ultrasound. I wouldn't but I would understand the bigger picture here. Rape is horrible I would imagine but killing all of these babies when we could save a few makes up for the inconvenience. Any loving mother would see this. The unloving self centered ones and the woman who have NO maternal instinct should have no opinion here.The lucky babies gets the best moms for sure.

Anonymous said...

What about women that had abortions and then went on to have families at a later time and were perfect mothers? In other words, who the fuck are you to question anyone's motives or reasoning?

Anonymous said...

So you teach your kids to speak with a gutter mouth. You just proved my point. Killing a baby is not admirable or loving. We are all entitled to our opinion and if you are offended by many who would disagree with you that is just too bad for you. We have to live with you but surely can be offended by you. You don't speak for moms unless you are one and if as I suspect u are a me first kind of mom then I feel for the innocents u infect. Hmm maybe u are a man. Worse yet....

Anonymous said...

1. Again, thank you Republicans for interfering in individuals freedoms to the point where your rhetoric is meaningless and you have handed women to the Democratic Party. Again, thank you.

2. Bernie, people go on many blogs. The Gracedale saga was long and ugly. Your boys Angle and Stoffa were no saints. You can piss and moan about it all you like but the facts are clear. Stoffa encouraged the folks to get signatures since like you he never though they would. You and Angle are pissed because the courts threw you out. The hate spewed by your pal Angle dwarfed any from private citizens. You are the typical,"power to the 'right' people, kind of guy". Shame on you!

Anonymous said...

anon 2:23
"thank you Republicans for interfering in individuals freedoms"
The problem here for me is not "abortion-yes or no", but "abortion-paid for with tax dollars."
I personally find abortion repugnant, but can't see myself imposing my view on you.
ON THE OTHER HAND, you seem quite willing to spend my money to impose your belief on me.
Does that sound like freedom? This Republican says no.

Capri said...

It is illegal, and has been since 1976, for abortions to be paid for with federal government money. PA also does not permit state funds to be used to pay for abortion services. Look it up.

That is not the issue at hand in the bill, or any other anti-choice bill.

Capri said...

Also, to address the anon at 1:24:

One in three women has been or will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. Even for those who think that only victims of rape should be afforded special protections (I think all women are entitled to choose their medical decisions and body decisions), you should be aware that no, its not only a "few" women who are victimized by rape and who then seek abortions.

Legislation like the proposed further traumatizes women, while also destroying the relationship between health care providers and women seeking health care services. If you were to only allow women who have been raped to be spared this further trauma, what would be the standard to determine who can be excused from this traumatic "counseling" and who must be subjected to it?

Anonymous said...

There are just no easy answer when it comes to killing a baby. At least there is that I suppose. People who are against abortion really do not want to be any part of it. That is understandable. As far as the ultrasound again these things are not black and white. As a mom with children, do not make me pay one penny for this. It takes away from my family also. This is another issue where if we could divide the country in half and each pick the side we want to live in I know who I want to be with. Again not so easy but I can dream....

Anonymous said...

2:37 I urge you to educate yourself by Googling the "Hyde Amendment." Then you won't sound so ignorant.

Anonymous said...

3:17 That's a lot of explanation for something so simple. What happens between any person and their doctor is private and should not be subject to any governmental interference. Forcing procedures or forcing women to look at photos is sick.

Anonymous said...

Some of you think if a women is raped she should carry that child for nine months and continue that horrible experience? What about a major birth defect? Let any women deside on her own. It's her body and her choice!

Anonymous said...

And keep the cost between you and your doctor....that is the real point. This includes contraceptives. Being poor does not mean being stupid. There are ways to avoid getting pregnant. There is also Planned Parenthood. .Obamacare wants to cover abortion so guess we will all pay then. So much for the Hyde Amendment. Try teaching and practicing a little self control. Less casual sex. Less contraceptives and abortions needed. Guess next we will have to buy drugs and alcohol for the poor addicts. Where does it stop???? Maybe we pay for the after sex cigarette?

Anonymous said...

All you dummies with insurance technically "pay" for abortions because your premiums go towards others health care which mostly covers abortions... read a book before you spew nonsense

Anonymous said...

Abortions and sterilizations should be mandatory for certain zip codes. Just as Planned Parenthood accepts donations targeted for urban areas with minority populations, we must all take a forward thinking approach to preventing the breeding of undesirables. The right wingers want all kinds of non-contributing classes to continue to reproduce; then, give them nothing to survive on. There is a fate worse than being vacuumed from a uterus. It's being born with no hope of being anything but a leech.

Lighthouse said...

I see faults on both extremes of this issue.
1. someone tied in the recent news about contraception, which isn't part of this bill. That said, why shouldn't health insurance plans include it? Cost-benefit, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of delivery. Sex is part of life (ask Republicans like Newt Gingrich), why wouldn't insurance want to prevent it. And I mean all insurance, not just those receiving public funds. Also, birth control is not the only reason many women use it.

2. That said, once conceived, abortion is wrong. Throwing rape into the mix is a red herring as approx 97% of abortions are essentially birth control choices of convenience. If rape/incest is your issue, then address that small percentage as a separate issue.

3. Trans-vaginal, like proposed in VA, is wrong. However, what is wrong with requiring exterior ultra-sounds beforehand? Just as it is easier to lie about someone you don't see; or make judgements about unemployed or the urban poor you don't see; or make casual arguments for war on people on the other side of the planet, it is much easier (while still difficult) to abort a child you do not actually see and can think of as just some lump of tissue. I think a pregnant mother should have to see how she is carrying a child before aborting it.

Lighthouse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Here's a fair compromise from a man who'll never get pregnant and shouldn't tell women what to do:

Women can choose to abort to their hearts' content and get them paid for. And no man can be prosecuted as a deadbeat dad, when he's exercising his choice to not be a father. Only wanted rugrats. Everybody gets choice. Everybody wins.

Anonymous said...

Clergy for Choice?

Go to their goofy facebook page, see the freaks ranting on about how if Jesus were here today he would be passing out birth control pills.

Clergy for choice. Heh.

-Clem

Anonymous said...

"There is a fate worse than being vacuumed from a uterus. It's being born with no hope of being anything but a leech.

5:43 PM"

Yours in genocide and master race engineering,

Adolph

Bernie O'Hare said...

Godwin's Law makes its first appearance.

Anonymous said...

It's from Wiki, so take it as you will...

"The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority...since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy."

-Clem

Anonymous said...

Agree. Citing Godwin is a kneejerk used in lieu of rhetoric when the discussion is actually about life issues. Don't blame Bernie, howevr. It's likely that many decent bloggers were aborted since Roe vs. Wade; just like the baby who would've grown up to cure cancer and AIDs.

c said...

Good post Bernie, this was a scary piece of legislation. It would not change the mind of someone who had already made the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Anonymous said...

The legislation was co-sponsored by Hahn, Harhart, Reichley and Simmons. All from the Valley.

Bernie O'Hare said...

That was noted in the first comment posted here. You forgot Emrick & Day. It appears it had heavy R support. Personally, I disagree with this kind of legislation.

Anonymous said...

Bernie, Is this really the kind of legislation that Pa. residents are looking for in State Government.

With all the unemployed and under-employed residents, you would think state legislators would cut taxes eliminate the state inheritance tax or create incentives for job creators.
Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

WHat is wrong with these people?

I mean, if Republicans would stick to fiscal matters, they would have my vote. But then, they get into office and pull this kind of nonsense --- anti-choice, voter ID....very Orwellian.

Anonymous said...

These are not BABIES yet. They are FETUSES. Fetuses that have a chance to maybe become a baby.

These are not people yet. I think any sensible, thinking person considers that life begins at the moment a fetus is able to sustain life independent of the mother.

Sorry for the graphic example, but if a fetus is to have the same legal standing as a baby, what about pre-fertilized eggs and sperm?

Should a man be guilty of a crime for wasting his ejaculate.....cuz in that case we're all going away for a very long time.

Anonymous said...

The anti-choice crowd is really something.

When I lived in the bible belt, I used to drive past this billboard every day. It was a grotesque picture of a bloody partial birth abortion.

the text said "Think this is ugly? Then why is it legal?"

I remember just thinking "This is a picture of a medical procedure. I also may find a graphic representation of a hystorectomy distasteful, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal."

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

Would you please consider covering how ALEC works to draft legislation?