re: #201 bfos

In scenario #2 and #3, I’m almost sure that an ultrasound would have already been performed. I admittedly, don’t know all of the details of this specific regulation in regards to what the practitioner must tell the patient. Certainly, there could be things that I would believe to be over the line. I’m also working with the assumption these ultrasounds won’t be carried out by the local Baptist pastor bent on changing the woman’s mind.

The ban of malpractice insurance seems insane.

I can’t imagine why an ultrasound would need to be performed if the pregnancy would impair a woman’s health, and while there might have been an ultrasound in the case of a fetal defect, it might have been discovered through amniocentisis. Yes, there would normally be ultrasound associated with that, but it might not meet the requirements of the law. The local Baptist pastor may not be involved physically, but this sort of law often has a script the doctors must adhere to that could have been written by said pastor.

I have no objection whatsoever to women being offered an ultrasound-and I understand in many cases that they already are.

The insanity of banning malpractice insurance should be a hint that the woman’s rights are not the primary issue. Surely you are aware that there are many, many laws that have a lot of window dressing to hide the true intent.