Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, where I proudly worked for many years, required, as part of its policies and protocols, that all women choosing an abortion have an ultrasound. There are sound medical and liability reasons for doing so.

However, that's very different from forcing women to look at the ultrasound image, or forcing her to listen to a script prescribed by law from provider to patient. At the clinic where I worked, women could certainly look at the image if they wanted to. (And as the great majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, there was very little to see). Not many women particularly wanted to look at the ultrasound, but those that did want to, certainly could.

Never once in my years of experience did a woman change her mind after looking at an ultrasound. To suggest that she would is an insult to all women's intelligence and our ability to make our own decisions. By the time a woman gets to a clinic, she's already gone through her decision-making process, sometimes a painful one. She's considered all the options, talked to her family and friends and doctor, and made the phone call to make the appointment. Apparently the right wingers/pro-lifers have the misguided and insulting idea that women have abortions on a whim, or without thinking it through, and that simply flashing an ultrasound picture in front of them will help clarify their thinking. Talk about condescending!

You may have worked at Planned Parenthood, but you can't presume to know what went on in every woman's mind who went through your clinic. I unfortunately received two abortions. I spoke to no doctors, family, or friends when making my decision. I was young, scared, and I only knew that I didn't want to be pregnant and that my baby was only a 'mass of cells'. I was not offered the option of ultrasound. Fear and shame play an inherent role in the decision to have an abortion. It's not the calm, responsible scenario you describe. The first abortion was followed by a second one two years later. I did not know I was pregnant, and was hospitalized due to severe abdominal pain which was determined to be the result of a ruptured ovarian cyst. It was at the hospital that I learned I was pregnant. I was given an ultrasound, and when I asked to see the screen I was refused the option because my chart indicated I was going to choose to have an abortion! I can guarantee that had I been able to see the ultrasound, I would not have gone through with the abortion. The hospital protected my 'right to choose' by not allowing me to see for myself that the 'mass of cells' really had human form and was a true life in utero.

It is not condescending to think that a woman might change her mind once she has seen the truth. It is simply irrational thinking to state that a woman can make an informed decision about ending the life inside of her without addressing her own desire to assess that decision with the evidence in front of her. Women have been told what to do from both sides of the question. Lets not pretend that abortion proponents are doing anything different. The truth is that the 'mass of cells' is really an unborn child. Some women feel they can't deal with that truth so they agree to kill that child. It's a harsh reality, but those are the facts that any woman must be willing to confront in the decision to have an abortion. If that reality was more apparent there would be less abortion; and that certainly should be the goal.

Uninformed consent is no consent at all.

If I go to a Doctor and I decide I need false teeth and want to get all my teeth pulled out, I don't have to watch a video about it first. Women can make an informed decision without an expensive test. I had an abortion 27 years ago. It was a big decision for me. I had two children already that I could barely afford to feed, was on unemployment, and looking for work. I knew that nobody would hire me if I was pregnant, laws or no laws. I did not want to go on welfare. The father of the child was a bum who wouldn't get a job and would not have made a good father. He was an ex con. It was stupid of me to get into a relationship with him in the first place but it would have been even more stupid to have a child that would tie me (and that child) to him for life. Plus, I needed to get a job. I made the decision to get an abortion. It wasn't about not knowing what I was doing, it was about MONEY. I needed to feed the kids I had. Sure, it was a tough decision, sure I think about it often, to this day. But I know I made the right decision for the position I was in at the time. I had pro-life groups offering to buy me a crib and baby clothes, but after that they disappear and just want to build more jails for the kids you can't afford, have to work all the time, and have no support for once they're not babies anymore. Because I did have the abortion, I got a job, and then a better job, raised the two kids that I already had and they now are grown, with good jobs and families of their own. It may have worked out if I had had another child, but I doubt it. I would have been condemning that child and the two children I already had to a life of poverty. Had I won a lottery, I would have changed my mind. But an ultrasound would not have changed the facts. How demeaning, to think that women just don't give it much thought! Leave these decisions to women and their doctors. People that are against choice (and we don't need an ultrasound to make that choice) are usually the same people that put down women on welfare and support the death penalty. Live your own life and let the women making those tough (and they are tough) decisons alone.

I completely agree. Women who have abortions usually think long and hard before making that decision, and it is insulting to think that every woman who seeks an abortion is in need of a scripted speech or ultrasound view to "be sure" of her decision or "give her all the facts". When I had my abortion, I actively sought a facility with an ultrasound, and I looked at the picture that came up. It was a tiny grey blob that the technician had to point out to me - a cluster of cells that had the potential for life, but at that moment (7 weeks into my pregnancy), could not have survived outside of my uterus. I had made my decision already, and I felt even more relief when, after the procedure, I saw another ultrasound picture that showed no grey blob. Looking at the ultrasound wouldn't have changed my mind, nor would some scripted speech about fingers, toes, or heartbeat. I took my time, thought carefully, did a lot of research, and chose my path. I don't regret it for a second.

Dmom, and not every woman's experience is like yours. I became pregnant, wasn't really sure if I wanted to carry it to term or not. That's when the constant vomiting started. I don't mean some queasiness in the morning that can be eased with saltines. I mean almost nonstop, all-day, all-night nausea and vomiting. By three weeks (since conception--I was only overdue for my period by a couple of days), I'd already made my decision. I wanted the vomiting to end, and end as soon as possible. So I had an abortion. No regrets. A few memories, a few lessons learned, but no regrets. There was no agonizing decision, no what-if, no if-only--just getthebucketigottapukeagain.

I think the idea of viewing the ultrasound is for women to understand what they are "terminating". Many refuse to believe or accept that it's a human life. Actually, many of the comments in these responses show the cavalier attitude many have about their abortions. I doubt it would change the mind of one in a hundred, but if such a grisly choice is made, then a full understanding of the situation should be required. If a person kills an expecting mother, they are often held accountable for the unborn life as well. Again, if many of these people knew ahead of time, they may have chosen to not end the mothers life. Probably wouldn't change but 1% of the time, but every one tenth of one tenth of one percent matters. Everything we do and do not do matters, if we can only overcome our apathy to accept it.

A bunch of cells are hardly human at the point the majority of abortions occur, they are however perfect parasites.

This spiel by darcrob doesn't sound truthful because of the suspicious claims about not having enough food for her children. Food stamps and AFDC are quite generous, as I remember from the days when I was poor and applied for the benefits. So, this talk about not having enough money for food just sounds like a lie.

The pleas about her hardship with lack of gov't benefits don't sound like the U.S. I live in.

The whole scam is that women don't know/can't understand/don't take it seriously what an abortion is and need to look at a video/see an ultrasound/read some right-to-life literature/listen to a right-to-life counselor/wait a couple days in case they change their minds. It's more than demeaning, it's dishonest and manipulative and meant only to make it more difficult and costly for those desparate women who have made a miserable choice in a bad situation.

Shame on anyone who can't speak truthfuly about this.

In exactly the same way that "pro-life" (I use the term advisedly and for purposes of shorthand only) people demand that "pro-choice" (also an inadequate term) people take a hard look at the fetus, alive and /or aborted, because they believe that the fetus and its intrinsic humanity have been glossed over, I demand that "pro-life" people take a hard look at how it is when abortion is illegal. It's all fine and lovely to say that they're "against" abortion, but if by that they mean that they want to make it illegal again, then they should not be allowed to deny or shield themselves from the reality of women bleeding to death on motel room floors or landing in hospital emergency rooms with septic shock, peritonitis, hemorrhage and perforated uteri. They should not be allowed to take refuge in extant historical revisionism which says that such horror stories are mere myth, urban legend, that it "wasn't that bad," that it's nothing but "pro-abortion propaganda." Memories are short. An entire generation has grown up in the Roe v. Wade era. Many people actually believe that abortion was invented in 1973. I can assure them that it was not, and that illegal abortion was as ubiquitous, dirty, and dangerous as we say it was. In other parts of the world where abortion is illegal, women bleed to death as we speak. Those of us who had close encounters of the first kind with illegal abortion, like me, stand by, utterly aghast, as people seriously discuss "abortion bans" and give credence to pundits and candidates who favor such bans as if this were a reasonable and legitimate direction for a civilized society. Who are we? Just a bunch of older women, therefore easy to ignore and marginalize. We should ALL, male or female, young or old, be as disturbed at the notion of anyone suggesting in even the most circumlocutory way the recriminalization of abortion as we would be at the suggestion of bringing back public flogging or legalizing lynching, torture, vigilante justice or gay-bashing. Illegal abortion is a looming, insidious marker of "uncivilization" right up there with all of those.

Either people believe women who abort deserve such crude, dirty, savage punishment, or they do not. There's really nothing else to discuss.

If you look at the data on fertility rates vs. CDC data on estimated abortion rates, the idea that making abortion illegal would change the number of abortions performed annually is just nonsense.

Anti-choice often point to the CDC data on estimated abortion rates pre 1973 (Roe) and the subsequent data on the dramatic increase in reported abortions. What they don't point to which contradicts the claim that legalization dramatically increased the number of abortions performed, are the birth rate/fertility data. The peak fertility was in 1953 and it declined by about 20% from there through 1965. From there its been fairly stable with a slight year to year decline.

If in fact the legal access to abortion changed the number of terminations, we'd expect a dramatic drop-off in fertility/live birthrates. Yet NO SUCH dropoff occurred. This suggests one of two conclusions:

1. Women are less careful about using birth-control and hence more likely to use abortion for birth control
2. Women ALWAYS had access to abortions and the rate of abortion hasn't changed that dramatically since Roe - but what has changed is the statistical visibility of the procedure.

#1 is the less likely of the two since Griswold which preceded Roe was precisely about access to birth control. And since then Sex Ed and the Pill, and Nor Plant etc etc have all increased the use of birth control.

Which of course leads to a conclusion that the anti-choice folks don't want to admit - abortion has always been with us, and about at the same rate as it currently is practiced. Its just less likely to kill the host woman.

Food stamps and AFDC are generous?

Drinking the GOP KoolAide are we? How many people do you know who actually have had to live on AFDC and Food Stamps? I know about 1/2 a dozen, including my brother when his business failed just after having a newborn.

You are speaking out of ignorance.

Many refuse to believe or accept that it's a human life.

And that is their Constitutional right. And YOU lack the Constitutional power at both the federal and state levels to compell anyone to have different beliefs anymore than it allows me to impose my views of this upon you.

If you want to talk about full understanding, do you also advocate that all pregnant women be told the full truth about pregnancy? That it means they are SIX TIMES more likely TO DIE if they carry to term than if they abort? That it is likely to screw up their hips and back for life? That it dramatically increases the likelihood of mid-life incontinence? That it dramatically increases the likelihood of divorce? That it dramatically reduces the likelihood of remarriage?

If a person kills an expecting mother, they are often held accountable for the unborn life as well.

Actually not true. These laws exist in only a few jurisdictions as criminal charges and their Constitutionality has not been fully tested. OFTEN pregnancy is considered as an aggrevating fact in Sentencing, but not in the actual charges. MOSTLY the "conviction" is in civil court based on the idea that children are chattel and by destroying a potential child you strip the parent of that economic value.

So unless you can show where The GOVERNMENT derives the power to propogandize, compell speech or control an unconvicted woman's body, then even if you overcome apathy, there is no basis for any laws to be passed forcing an ultrasound

The reason you were denied an ultrasound did not have to do with the MDs but with your insurance carrier. Since you were going to abort anyway, the insurance company would not have covered the ultrasound. And unless you paid the hospital up front, they were under no compunction to provide you with a treatment that they were likely to not get paid for since it had nothing to do with critical care.

It is not condescending to think that a woman might change her mind once she has seen the truth.

Of course it is. What you seem to miss is that the condescending part is your insistence that YOUR BELIEF is "THE TRUTH", and that those who disagree with you are simply ignorant of that truth. The reality is that it is your BELIEF. And it is condescending to believe that YOUR BELIEF is any better than some other woman's belief.