Reply #13: That was my question... [View All]

[WorseBeforeBetter]

who is going to pay? But aren't ultrasounds already required (and therefore part of the cost) to ensure the pregnancy is advanced enough to perform a surgical abortion? I did a quick Google and came up with the following from a rabid anti-choice group:

"One abortionist on Long Island even said, 'the bottom line is no woman is going to want an abortion after seeing a sonogram.'"

http://www.care-net.org/news/pr/pr5.pdf

I don't dismiss the guilt/dissuade argument--that's one of the many reasons they protest outside of clinics with extremely graphic images.

On edit:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/legis07/stories/2007/03/19/0320metlegabortion.html

In Georgia:

"Under the bill, the physician who is going to perform an abortion or his or her qualified assistant must provide the woman with a list of health care providers, facilities and clinics that offer to perform an ultrasound free of charge.

If the woman chooses to have an ultrasound, the doctor must ask her if she wants to see the images and hear the fetal heartbeat, if audible at the time. Before an abortion, a woman must certify in writing whether she was provided the opportunity to view the ultrasound and listen to the fetal heartbeat and whether she accepted either offer."

Here's a radical idea: Why not improve access to affordable birth control and provide realistic education rather than paying for ultrasounds after the fact?

Sigh, common sense is truly gone in this country.