Oklahoma Lawmaker Proposes 'Unborn Child Ultrasound Imaging Act'

[Beet]

Forgive me for being cynical, but this proposal probably didn't come out of the committee on education. The option being presented and its intended effect is a point of argument from one side of a political debate.

[A18]

The point is it does nothing to curtail a woman's ability to get an abortion, so it is in no sense 'anti-choice.'

[Beet]

The point is it does nothing to curtail a woman's ability to get an abortion, so it is in no sense 'anti-choice.'

Beyond the political motive, it curtails the right of doctors to offer abortion services without offering ultrasound services. Would you approve of a law that required all hot dog vendors to also sell hamburgers?

[A18]

I didn't say the proposal would not curtail anyone's freedom. Nor did I even say I supported it. I am merely saying that it does not interfere with the right to choose.

[Alcon]

It's private industry, Philip, and you are forcing a business practise upon them.

[Emsworth]

It's private industry, Philip, and you are forcing a business practise upon them.

Compelling private companies to offer ultrasounds does not, as Philip correctly points out, interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion. Of course, it interferes with the company's freedom, but I don't think that he disputes this point.

[A18]

It's private industry, Philip, and you are forcing a business practise upon them.

And what does that have to do with anything?

[Alcon]

It's private industry, Philip, and you are forcing a business practise upon them.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Why interfere with private industry?  What business should the government have here?

[A18]

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Did I ever say I supported this proposal?

[Alcon]

Again, what does that have to do with anything? Did I ever say I supported this proposal?

You have posted over a half dozen posts defending aspects of this proposal, which might give some the implication that you either support it or are ambivilant, which goes against your normal championing of the rights of private industry.

[A18]

I am merely refuting specific arguments.

[Alcon]

I am merely refuting specific arguments.

Well, do you agree with it, though?

[A18]

Agree with the proposal? I'm pro-life, and so I have no problem with screwing over abortion clinics.

[Alcon]

Agree with the proposal? I'm pro-life, and so I have no problem with screwing over abortion clinics.

So, your opposition to the government interfering with private business extends only to the point where it becomes convenient to advance your own agendas?

[A18]

It extends only to the point where the business begins to infringe upon the rights of an individual. In this case, the unborn child.

[Emsworth]

It extends only to the point where the business begins to infringe upon the rights of an individual. In this case, the unborn child.

This law allows abortions but requires clinics to offer ultrasounds. If fetuses are persons, then allowing abortion violates private rights. And if fetuses are not persons, requiring clinics to offer ultrasounds also violates private rights. In either case, the law is inconsistent with personal liberty.

[A18]

Right, but this is better than nothing. Due to the Supreme Court, you can't outlaw abortion.

[Ebowed]

"The intent behind many of these bills is to throw barriers in the paths of women who make decisions for their own lives that legislators may disagree with," said Anita Fream, chief executive officer at Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma.

"We believe these decisions are a matter of personal responsibility, and we trust Oklahoma women to make responsible decisions in their own lives," Fream said.

How does this proposal interfere with a woman's "right" to choose an abortion?

[GOP = Terrorists]

Right, but this is better than nothing. Due to the Supreme Court, you can't outlaw abortion.

Sure you can.  Constitutional Amendment.  Problem is that the majority of Americans are don't agree with outlawing abortion.

Anyhow I'd have to see a few things.  Like where the money to pay for all this is coming from.  But since I doubt it will be completely funded I will vote Democrat-No. 

But if this were rolled into a compromise abortion reduction bill with funding contraceptives and sex education I'd probably vote for it.

[A18]

Sure you can.  Constitutional Amendment.  Problem is that the majority of Americans are don't agree with outlawing abortion.

Due to the Supreme Court, the issue is no longer left to the normal democratic process, to be decided on a state by state basis. No constitutional amendment should be necessary.

Anyway, we're simply talking about what this state legislator can do.

[Brandon H]

This is a good law if passed. Many people who claim to be "pro-choice" are really "anti-choice" because they do not want women to have all the facts when considering abortion. They are not honest to the women because if they don't choose to abort their baby, then they don't get any money. Women who see ultrasounds have chosen life 85% of the time - not good if you rely in aborting babies to make money.

To those who complain that this is wrong because the abortion businesses should not have to pay for these machines should look at the record profits from the abortion business as well as the amount of federal money given to the abortion businesses. So I wouldn't feel sorry for them for having to pay for these machines (which go for $50 - 100,000).