The sweethearts in our legislature are looking out for us, especially the females among us, and are trying to ensure that none of said females can get an abortion without looking at an ultrasound picture of the fetus. How thoughtful. Such concern for our fairer sex.
But I'm wondering, who's going to pay for that? Does the clinic or ultrasound technician have to do it for free? Will the insurer, or the uninsured, i.e., the patient, pay for it. When there's no medical reason for the ultrasound it's just a, gasp!, unfunded mandate.
Maybe the legislature will ask the taxpayers to pay for it.
Actually, the bill calls for a list of clinics who will provide the ultrasound for free, so the patient "may" view the image and "may" hear the "heart tone." Well, that's nice, for those who want it.
But I'm suspicious (which is a character flaw of mine, I'll admit). I suspect that anti-abortion groups will set up such clinics, and any female going there will hear the heart tone regardless of choice (technician; oops, I left the sound turned up), and will also be subject to their anti-abortion message.The bill is obviously just another hurdle for a woman seeking an abortion.
Which is clear from the requirement that no physician can perform an abortion before "certifying" that the abortion was done, the woman was offered the choice to view and hear, and she has to initial a form certifying this, and jeezus, what a hassle for the doctor and the patient. It even specifies "the statement must be in bold print of at least twelve-point type."
Ah, those small government, nanny-state hating, freedom lovers in our legislature. Where would we be without them?