Editorial: Ultra-intrusion in Idaho
Despite opposition from level-headed Republicans like North Idaho senators John Goedde, Joyce Broadsword, Jim Hammond and Shawn Keough, legislation approved by the Senate and now awaiting passage in the House would carry governmental intrusion literally into the wombs of pregnant women. The goal of the legislation, backed by Right to Life of Idaho, is to have women see ultrasound images of the fetus they're carrying in hopes that they'll then decide not to terminate the pregnancy. But the application goes beyond the line where governmental authority should end and an individual's rights begin.
Because abdominal ultrasounds are unreliable in detecting fetal heartbeats during the early stages of pregnancy, medical experts say Idaho's law will frequently require vaginal ultrasounds. Abdominal ultrasounds are medically invasive enough to raise questions of government intrusion; vaginal ultrasounds manage to take that invasiveness even further.
This raises more than moral questions; legal and financial ramifications are left dangling.
Clearly, the legislation continues Idaho's attempts to erode Roe v. Wade. Last year, the Legislature adopted a measure that prohibits abortions after the fetus reaches 20 weeks of gestation. The state's approach apparently is, if you can't beat a federal law, nibble away at the corners until the law collapses. No doubt, this trespassing into individuals' rights will bring litigation and with it, cost to Idaho taxpayers.
Speaking of costs, the legislation requires the ultrasounds to be paid for by the women receiving them. Backers of the bill weren't merely satisfied with vaginal intrusion; apparently they wanted forced entry into the women's bank accounts, too.
We join the voices of many Idaho residents from all political backgrounds asking House members to stop the governmental assault on individual rights and the sanctity of their privacy. Abort SB 1387
_____
The following comments were previously posted by CDAPress.com users on the site's editorial page which can be linked to here. The unedited comments remain on that page also.
Jeffrey Wherley posted at 7:23 am on Mon, Mar 26, 2012.
Posts: 3190
Who wrote this tripe?
By the legislation, an intervaginal Ultrasound can only be ordered by a Doctor with patient consent. Why would a doctor order one? If an abdominal ultrasound cannot confirm a pregnancy, would be the only real reason. This bill is intended to end the practice of doing abortions on NON-pregnant women, this happens all the time. Lie one impeached.
"The goal of the legislation, backed by Right to Life of Idaho, is to have women see ultrasound images of the fetus" This is an obvious lie also, if this was the goal of the bill, why would they include an otion for the patient to opt out of seeing or hearing the products of the ultrasound? The writer of this opinion is obviously a complete moron, thinks all people are complete morons, or is willing to say or doing anything to gain on a political agenda. Lie 2 impeached.
Even the best urine tests are unable to accurately detect a pregnancy 14+ days past ovulation. Urine hCG tests are qualitative and blood tests are Quantitative both are fallible Pos and Neg, by many factors. A Doctor faced with a Pos Home preg test, orders another in his lab and a Blood test because he sees his patients as Possibly pregnant. If his tests come back Pos he will order an ultrasound because he considers her probably pregnant. With a Positive Ultrasound her Dx will change to Pregnant. Why should any Abortion ever be done before a responsible doctor would even Diagnose a patient as Pregnant? By the third week after conception or The fifth week of pregnancy (the 2 time line are different) one week after the first missed period the heart CAN be detected, most women haven't even relized they have missed their period by this time. "Because abdominal ultrasounds are unreliable in detecting fetal heartbeats during the early stages of pregnancy, medical experts say Idaho's law will frequently require vaginal ultrasounds." True but Sooo misleading, I will call it a LIE and impeached.
Mary Souza posted at 6:09 pm on Sun, Mar 25, 2012.
Posts: 518
Kimknerl, I'm talking about the right to life! You know, the one guaranteed by the Constitution? The mother and father have many rights. They have the right to have sex or not to. They have the right to use birth control or even two methods of birth control, or not to.
But when they choose to have unprotected or under-protected sex, and a baby results from their actions, they are responsible to protect that child's constitutional right to life.
The parents do not have to raise the child, and adoption is a very important option.
Ultrasounds are a source of information for the mother. I've had both kinds of ultrasounds several times and they are not uncomfortable, embarrassing or immodest in any way. A yearly pap smear involves way more exposure and pain! And I bet an abortion is far and away more invasive, of course.
fiepie posted at 4:33 pm on Sun, Mar 25, 2012.
Posts: 1552
I do not agree with abortion but do believe that that is that persons decision.
I agree with the editorial writer and kimknerl.
Do we need the State to intervene in a decision you and yours may have to make?
If we do then why not make it manditory that before you get a driver's liscence you must go through a morgue and see what a car wreck victim looks like?
Before you can buy a cigarette you must go watch someone die of lung cancer? Before you buy a house go to a burn unit and see what a burn victim looks like, an abused spouse lying in a hospital bed or morgue and on and on.
Do we need the State to dictate to you about decisions you and yours might decide to make?
Where do we stop?
DeNiles posted at 4:21 pm on Sun, Mar 25, 2012.
Posts: 1432
kimknerl...... Adoption. No mother needs to kill the child they carry even if they choose to not raise the youngster.
Consider the reality of abortion. However sterilized the process, it is an entirely barbaric act. Are we a culture so insanely pleasure focused that we need to resort to what essentially is a primitive and very savage form of birth control? Does 21st century western civilization really need to kill babies so that some women can feel liberated and all the males can feel free to exploit them at will? This has nothing to do with anyones religion. You know this for certain if you have ever held a newborn.
kimknerl posted at 2:52 pm on Sun, Mar 25, 2012.
Posts: 50
Mary, if we are talking about individuals’ rights, we must first define the rights that you are referring to. Are you commenting about what may be perceived as moral rights, or the rights of citizenship in the United States? The two primary sources of citizenship are birthright citizenship, in which a person is presumed to be a citizen provided that he or she is born within the territorial limits of the United States, and naturalization, with neither of these fitting the definition of a fetus.
Now please don’t believe for one second that I have no issues with abortion, as that is far from the truth. Too many times I have witnessed an individual become pregnant over and over, only to have the fetus aborted. That is morally wrong and completely irresponsible. However, I have also seen those who behave responsibly and end up with an unplanned surprise, a pregnancy that would have a devastating effect on their ability to survive due to limited wages, housing, etc. SB 1387 groups all women together.
Add to this the facts that SB 1387 is being pushed by the Right to Life of Idaho, a religious organization, a group I feel is seriously stepping over the separation of church and state when a particular religion is attempting to dictate law based on their beliefs. This is very dangerous ground we are moving towards. If I choose to be a part of a particular religion, then I am making a choice to follow their way of life. However, just because I choose to live in Idaho, I should not be obligated to follow the values of the major religion in this state. The Right to Life of Idaho would like us to believe that this ultrasound legislation protects the mother’s right to see her unborn child in real-time ultrasound, it provides the opportunity for her to learn all important facts before making this life-changing decision, but if we are truly being honest, it is an attempt to sway a woman’s decision in favor of the church’s beliefs.
Mary Souza posted at 9:05 am on Sun, Mar 25, 2012.
Posts: 518
Mike, you write that this legislation is " trespassing into individuals' rights". What about the rights of the baby? No one wants to talk about the fact that there's a separate human being in the mother's womb, a life that has a right to protection.
The time for "choice" is before procreation (sex). Responsibility is what comes after.