Lately, a lot of talk has been fueled by the upcoming House Bill 15. This bill would basically make a women have a required sonogram test before an abortion. Tomorrow, the bill will be sent back to the House so they can sign off on a few small changes to this bill.
Whether the sonogram should be administered in a twenty-four hour period or a two hour period advance has been a major argument between Democrats and Republicans. Some senators feel the twenty-four hour period is too long, and creates hardships on the women trying to receive an abortion. These hardships were mainly centered around the difficulty in finding transportation. Senator Carlos Uresti of San Antonio offered to uphold the twenty-four waiting period if some exceptions were made for women who live over 100 miles away or in a smaller populated county. Senator Wendy Davis of Fort Worth proposed that a lot of women who lived in urban counties had transportation problems as well. She continued to say that this bill was only meant to traumatize women.
Regardless of what Republicans or Democrats say the bill is for. It is a given that this bill is going to be passed soon. This bill will include specific terms that have recently been updated and approved today. These include: A physician (or trained assistant) must perform a sonogram at least twenty-four hours before a women is allowed to receive an abortion (special cases have been made), a small description of the development in the fetus must be given at the sonogram (special cases are made for sexual assault victims), women can refuse to listen to the heartbeat or view images, medical emergencies are the only exception, abortion provides will be periodically checked to ensure compliance, physicians are required to give a list of information to the woman, and finally if a woman chooses not to have the abortion, the provider must give them information assistance on how to obtain child support.
Quite the bill, it includes a lot. All information was gathered from an article in The Texas Tribune.
- Blake
If We Can't Trust A Woman With A Choice.. How Can We Trust Her With A Baby?
ReplyDeletePretty long title, but it sums up my feeling about the sonogram bill. Not only did I read Blake's article titled "More Sonogram News" but I've followed the bill since it was proposed. Obviously, I'm as much of a fan of this bill as our Senators are to the Roe v Wade outcome. Has anyone pointed out that abortion is legal? I know it shouldn't be available in drive thrus or sold as "at home kits" but I'm certainly not against a women's right to choose, either. The idea that a woman who has already made the difficult choice is now being made to view her sonogram, is pretty damn cruel. It's not as though there aren't agencies, clinics, groups and anonymous helplines there to provide support, should a woman be in doubt about her decisions. At the doctor's office and about to under go procedure, is not the time throw that in her face. It's a total invasion of personal rights. When a cancer person puts their life in immediate jeopardy by deciding to refuse treatment, are they required to be shown a slideshow of the family, friends and life that they'll lose with their decision? I know it sounds a bit extreme to take it to that point and I also know that people who are pro-life don't exactly have malicious intentions in being so but regardless of how those people may feel, the action is legal. The decision that is made is a personal one and one that shouldn't be intervened on by the government's idea of a persuasion tactic. It begs the question, "where do we draw the line?"