At what point does the action of a state place an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion? Mandatory waiting periods of 24 hrs. or less are fine; religious counseling is not. But what about mandatory sonograms?
New, unneeded obstacles to abortion
I agree with the article that women do not need the government's arm-twisting to have them stray away from an abortion. At first, I was fine with Texas's law of having a mandatory sonogram, just come into the doctor's office, get information, ultrasound, and done. However, reading of the other things required by law, such as hearing the baby's heartbeat, makes me think otherwise now. Texas's law is now, in my eyes, a undue burden as it is deliberately attempting to develop and strengthen an emotional tie to the unborn baby from the mother which I believe is highly unfair. We shouldn't be working to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want/can't support. As in the rape exception, that also puts an undue burden as women don't report the crime due to subsequential implications that can arise from reporting it. Abortions should be, and should only be, a woman's choice. The government has no business whatsoever to be involved in this heart-wrenching and difficult process/decision.
ReplyDeleteMark Yu
Period 3
If the ultrasound isn't even recommended by a doctor, what allows the government to force women to receive one when wanting an abortion? Women who do want an abortion should be given all information necessary, but I don't think a forced ultrasound is for that purpose. A forced ultra sound sounds more like an excuse to shame and harass women who want to undergo an extremely personal and many times, dismal procedure, and the government shouldn't be in a position to regulate it to this extent. Women along with her family, her advisers, and her doctors should be the ones making the decisions for what's the best choice for her family, not Washington.
ReplyDeleteEunice Choi
p. 2
I agree with the article 100%. I dont think a sonogram before the abortion can happen is necessary. The government is trying to make it so the mother can second guess her judgement. Like the article states some women are raped and become pregnant. Not all women report rapes some are afraid. I think women should be able to decide on there own whether or not they want an abortion not the government.
ReplyDeleteTayari Venable
per.2
Instead of an ultrasound being a requirement I think it should be a choice. The reason I say this is because I believe an ultrasound is too much of a regulation. Yes it does give the decision of abortion to a woman more to think about but I believe it violates precedent. In the court case planned parenthood v. casey it does not allow states to ban abortion but it does allow states to regulate it. However, it does not allow the states to regulate an abortion to the point of "undue burden" in other words the states can't regulate to the extent that a woman will turn back on her choice originally made to go through with the abortion procedure. So I think requiring and ultrasound is a burden put upon a woman that should not be in place.
ReplyDeleteLauren Casillas p.2
I agree with the article in saying that FORCING a woman and a doctor to listen and describe explicit details about the fetus and it's heartbeat is not the government's role to say the least. However, if a woman so wishes to receive an ultrasound prior to an abortion decision in order to make the decision with the most knowledge regarding the fetus as possible, I feel that should not be frowned upon either. The government's role in a woman's right to abort is near non-existent in my opinion and the fact that even some physicians feel uncomfortable with the forced act displays the overstepping of the government in this process.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Urbina P. 2
I completely agree with the article. A woman should definitely be informed on abortions and the side affects that come along with it, but guilting them for their decision with mandatory sonograms is too much. Like the article said, women put a lot of thought into this decision. They consider their health, financial standing, opinions of others, and much more. The government should not need to regulate this choice so much. Having a 24 hour waiting period is somewhat reasonable (depending on the circumstance), but forcing them to hear the fetus' heartbeat should not be aloud. The article also states that mandatory sonograms are not even necessary medically, so why have them any way? A woman should be left to make her decision without the government intervening.
ReplyDeleteSahar Yazouri P.2
I agree with the article's stance on mandatory sonograms before abortion. There is clearly no purpose to requiring a sonogram other than to induce guilt on the woman for wanting to abort the baby. A woman may want to take a sonogram for verification purposes before abortion, but this should be a choice purely decided upon by the woman and not the government. It certainly should not come with strings attached, such as requiring the woman to listen to the baby's heartbeat or the doctor's lectures. These additional requirements make it clear that this law is not created for purely verification purposes. It is designed to question a woman's decision and dissuade her from exercising her right to an abortion. Though subtle, these requirements act as an emotional appeal to shun the woman for aborting. It forces the woman to choose between living a life of financial instability and health problems or a life of guilt and emotional torment.
ReplyDeleteThe sonogram requirement may appear innocent on the surface, but it has many hidden intents.
Austin Yuan P2
Being informed about any surgical procedure is important, but a sonogram is not a part of a procedure like this. A sonogram should at least be a choice, but not required by the state, especially when a sonogram has no part of the process. What makes this law worse is if the woman is unfortunately raped she must go through police procedures to convict, then go have the abortion she wanted. A woman should be able to have any procedure she wants with out government restricting her in such an unnecessary way.
ReplyDelete-Jacinda Clay P. 2
I agree with the article in the sense that all the information about abortions should be provided and mandatory to the patients, while in the beginning thinking the sonograms were part of the process of an abortion. After reading into the article and doing some other readings to find out they are not necessary, I whole heartedly agree with the article. The sonogram was just an "undue burden" on the women wanting in abortion. It just seemed like a way to sway the women once more even though there is already a lot of other thoughts put into the process and the overall decisions. This is an example of state laws intervening in the process.
ReplyDeleteCollin Chouinard P.3
I think that having a sonogram before abortion as a law is not necessary. I feel that this invades a women's privacy, because it seems that the government getting involved in private matters. Having the government regulate abortion creates controversy over in what situation is the women aloud to have an abortion. So abortion should be up to the women in their own privacy.
ReplyDelete-anarika c per2
I agree with the article that requiring sonograms are unnecessary and place a burden on the woman as there is a forced time period for when it is scheduled and may influence the decision of the woman who is being lectured by doctors and required to hear the baby's heartbeat. These requirements invade the privacy of the woman and can be used to influence the decision of the woman which a doctor should not be able to do as they are suppose to inform rather than help make a decision. This regulation goes too far and from the Planned Parenthood v Casey case should be deemed unconstitutional as it burdens the woman and due to a citizens right to privacy should not have to face extraneous persuasion or feel pressured to make a decision.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Wellendorf P3
I agree with the author of the article. A woman should not have to have a sonogram before she gets an abortion. Furthermore, why does it have to be explained in detail to the woman? Like the article said, it’s a practice with no medical necessity to perform an abortion. It seems like the only purpose behind this requirement is to persuade the woman to become emotionally attached to the fetus in hopes that she changes her mind.
ReplyDeleteMary B. P3
I do not think women should be required to have sonograms before having an abortion as it makes the woman feel obligated to disregard the abortion out of guilt and shame. I do think they should be informed of the possible risks/information regarding the procedure. However, I feel that the government should not be involved in what a woman decides to do with her body. In addition, like the article stated, women may stray away from seeking medical advice at all. It can be considered an “undue burden” on the woman because of the fact that their intentions are not ones of “medical necessity,” but other means. If the government left the decision of whether or not the woman should have a sonogram, I feel that would be a better alternative than forcing her into something she may not feel comfortable with.
ReplyDelete-Britney Koh p.3
It is hard to not agree with the author about opposing the forced viewing of sonograms before an abortion. I think it's clear that this law discourages abortion and shames the women who go through with one. One thing the article did not really explain was why and how the law was upheld. In what way is viewing the sonograms part of mandatory providing of information? The decision to keep or abort a child is obviously a huge one, and this law is in a way treating women like little kids, by giving them a "choice", but trying to emotionally control their decision.
ReplyDeleteJoel Bolton per.3
A sonogram before an abortion seems logical to me. Does it not make sense to be certain of the age of the fetus before aborting it, especially if the state has laws that restrict the time period in which the procedure is legal? Furthermore, it could offer the mother a chance to ask any questions or voice concerns, which seems completely fair. Also, the health center may need time to gather the proper materials, staff, and room for privacy; therefore, the delay is justified.
ReplyDeleteTanner Rouse (Period 3)
I agree with the author of this article and their views that a sonogram should not be required by the state. I think informing the woman about the procedure and relaying all possible options is okay. The state crosses the line when they degrade a woman for making a decision that should be only her concern. I think the purpose of requiring a sonogram is double-sided, not only informing but trying to persuade the woman to change her mind. It is possible that strong religious views within the state government could have been the cause of this requirement. Therefore, going back to a strong precedent, there should be a "wall between church and state."
ReplyDeleteCassidy Latham p. 2
I agree with the article. I believe that the mandatory sonogram for a woman wanting an abortion is an act more towards preventing said abortion than educating her on what is happening. The purpose of showing her that sonogram, in my opinion, would be to guilt the woman into a choice that she did not want orginally. I do not see the educational purpose in showing a this mandatory sonogram. It may not be regulation upon regulation in order to dissuade people who want abortions, but the sonogram can dissuade a wonan who wants an abortion nonetheless. I do feel it is an undue as well, or maybe an undue in its most beggining stage.
ReplyDeleteAshley abalos p2
This is a difficult position for me to blog about coming from a pro-life stance on abortion, but I do agree with the article that an ultrasound is not necessary. I understand that Texas is a red state that is pro-life and see how thy are trying get the mother to be emotional and not abort the baby. That's not what this is about, this is about the constitutionality of the ultrasound. Under current law(FEDERAL)abortion is legal. Texas is trying to prevent abortion, and the ultrasound law, "undermines the principles of self-determination and patient autonomy that are the foundation of informed consent". since current law is permissive of abortion, the mothers willing to abort their baby, will do so anyway, an ultrasound is unnecessary and is likely to do nothing but waste time and under CURRENT law, tries to shame a woman from abortion and prevent her from exercising what the law permits now.
ReplyDeleteGrant Sipos P.3
I agree with the article and believe that requiring women in Texas to get a sonogram right before an abortion overextends the state’s regulatory power. States can put regulations on abortion to make sure women are informed of the procedure, but I feel this “regulation” in particular is more of a burden to guilt women for their decision to abort. People who choose to abort should have complete control of this kind of decision and not be forced to comply with government regulations. The article even states that women in other countries self-abort with needles and knives because they cannot get proper assistance due to strict government regulations. This would deteriorate their health much more than if they received an abortion. I feel like government “regulations” like this do not completely protect individuals’ privacy and are merely attempts to maintain a certain set of beliefs in society.
ReplyDeleteRoberto Martinez P.2
I agree with this article completely. Yes all women should go into an abortion completely knowledgeable about what they're doing and it's good for the government to provide that assistance. However when the government forces a woman to get a sonogram and heart see the fetus, that image is creating an undue burden in the hopes that the woman will become attatched to the baby and change her mind. The woman is allowed to make the decision for herself and forcing a sonogram then a 24 hour waiting period is an example of the government overstepping its boundaries.
ReplyDeleteCarissa Martinez Period 3
I disagree with the author because he believes that anything that slows the abortion process like the mandatory 24 hour wait to undergo the procedure is completely trying to stop the abortion when most states do it to give the mother a second chance to really think this huge decision over. But I still agree with her that the mandatory sonograms are too much because there isn't a medical reason or benefit of this procedure for the patient and all that procedure is, is to change the mother's mind and force the state's opinion of abortion onto the woman.
ReplyDeleteFelipe De La Rosa
P.3
I strongly agree with the article, women should have the right that decides whether to keep the child or not. I believe abortion is right that should be protected and women should have the freedom towards it. When women being raped, they should have the right to not keep the child. If abortion is banned, then women will basically lose their right. Which I also believe is controversy to the First amendment.
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
Olivia Lu
I agree with the author of the article that mandatory sonograms are not necessary for a woman to have if she wants to undergo an abortion. Like the author wrote in the last two paragraphs, women definitely think it over extensively before actually deciding to go through with an abortion. The fact that Texas is placing obstacles before them to make it subjectively more difficult to do so is absurd. A woman should be allowed to decide what happens to her own body without having to worry about outside forces trying to manipulate her decision or guilt her into changing her mind. Her choice wouldn't have any real affect on anyone else but herself whatsoever, so I don't see why ANYONE, let alone the government, should be able to control the process of getting an abortion.
ReplyDelete-Adrienne Sanchez, p.2
I believe that sonograms are not necessary before going into abortion. Women should have a choice whether or not they should use a sonogram. Whether or not states are wrong in using this action as a way to prevent abortion, it creates the opportunity to sway a woman from committing. This could be determined by changing her mind by guilt-tripping or the attachment. Therefore, a 24 hour wait period should be enough would any other problems.
ReplyDeleteRonald Law P.3
I think forcing an ultrasound upon a woman considering an abortion is too much of a regulation. Of course it does give the woman more things to consider when thinking about an abortion but I think forcing it goes against precedent. The decision for the court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey it does not allow states to ban abortion but it does allow states to regulate it. However, it doesn't allow the states to regulate abortion to the point of "undue burden". Ultimately, the states are not allowed to regulate to the extent that a woman will be prevented from going through with the abortion. Considering this, I believe requiring an ultrasound is an "undue burden" for the women considering abortions. Instead of requiring the ultrasound, it should just be an option for the woman.
ReplyDeleteAbby Salmon P. 2
I agree with getting a sonogram before going through with an abortion; just to make sure that you are for sure for sure about what you're about to do. However, to have the government force every woman to get one before getting an abortion then making them wait 24 hours before actually getting the abortion is just to much of a burden on the woman. Especially if the woman got rapped. The last thing she wants is to hear someone talk about the risk she is taking. Like the article said this type of burden is what causes people to do unsafe abortion. Then there could be more than one person loosing their life that day.
ReplyDeleteTyla Jones P.3
I agree completely with the article. In the beginning, I was a little skeptical, though I did think the sonogram was unnecessary, I didn't see that much wrong with it other than an annoyance. However as I read more into it, it was obvious that it was put in place to deliberately shame women about their abortions. The fact that the rape exceptions are only applied when they are reported to the police is absolutely ridiculous. The amount of women who face rape and sexual assault is astounding and the majority of them do not report it in fear of having to relive the trauma in exponentially worse ways. Once you report an instance of sexual assault, you are undermined and dehumanized, treated as if you are the guilty one. In the cases that do actually get reported, a minuscule amount of offenders actually get put behind bars. Basically, as pointed out in the article, women are being more and more isolated from the government and justice department. Therefore this is yet another step in the wrong direction. Aside from moral standpoints, this is also unconstitutional due to precedent. In the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, it was ruled that states cannot place "undue burden" regulations. This sonogram requirement has little plausible medical information, and is solely meant to push a sexist ideological agenda in which those lacking ovaries and uteruses feel compelled to share their input and think that they can decide what is best for those possessing the those organs.
ReplyDeleteSarah Hidayat P.2
I agree with the article that requiring a women to get a sonogram is not necessary. Women should have a choice to decide whether or not they want to have a sonogram. I don't think that the government should regulate the decisions of these women, the women should choose what is right. However, I do see the viewpoint of a Pro-life person. I do see and understand why they want a sonogram because they believe that it is a human and should not abort a child. However, I still think a sonogram should not be forced onto a women.
ReplyDeleteShannan Martinez P.3
I completely agree with the article and think that forcing a woman by law to have a sonogram done before receiving an abortion is by all means an undue burden. While having an abortion is hard enough on the mother, having to see or hear the baby's heart beat will only make the experience even more tramautic for the mother and is done so by the government to intentionally change the woman's mind about what she will do with her baby and also creates and sense of shame. Especially in the case of the women who have no choice but to abort the baby for their own health or vivtims of rape who didn't have to choice of being impregnated; having to be forced to endure a sonogram to influence your already difficult decision is in my opinion cruel and not a decision that should be made by anyone but the mother.
ReplyDeleteKamrin Entrikin p.3
The forced sonogram law is used to guilt trip the mother into not having an abortion. This is a form of persuasion that the government is not allowed to do as it violates Roe V Wade. The case determined that the government couldn't make decisions based on a solely ideological reason. With no medical necessity, the law is acting on ideological bases and in turn creating an unnecessary emotional burden on the mother to terminate her pregnancy. It's also violating the implied privacy given to mothers by Roe V Wade. A women has the right to go seek medical help without fear of scrutiny. A doctor-patient relationship is a professional and non judgemental one. This law makes doctors go beyond what is required of them, which is to give the mandatory medical information. The law puts an ideological narrative in the doctor's actions infringing on their right to free speech as the doctors themselves don't feel it's necessary to give an ultra-sound and are being forced by the government to say it. All things considered, with so much stigma around abortion, women shouldn't be shamed in the one place they went to receive help.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am pro-life, I see both sides of this argument. I believe that a sonogram will help the woman understand how big of a deal an abortion is. Because we are dealing with the life of a child, abortion should be a decision that is thought about deeply before making any decisions. However, it just seems unconstitutional, and a lack of liberty is being portrayed. Although it is a very difficult decision, FORCING a sonogram does not seems like a very logical idea for a "free" country.
ReplyDeleteChris Weiland P. 3
I agree with article that the mandatory sonogram is onlty placed to shame and guilt trip women who are interested in an abortion. I was honestly in shock. I can't beleive that rapre victims must report the crime... The state should not question the motive for abortion. With the mandatory sonogram, the government is forcing women to undergo a "burden". Same as having to report sexcual assault. The sonorgram has no medical value and it should not be required.
ReplyDeleteBianca Alonso-Bermudez P.2
A sonogram really is not necessary during the process of an abortion. The mother should have the choice of whether or not she wants to see or receive info through this visual display. I agree in that a mandatory sonogram would become burdensome and persuade women to change their mind. That is not the the purpose of these medical doctors and clinics. They serve to inform the mother and perform the abortion, leaving their beliefs aside and respecting the patient's decision. It is not their baby, or their decision to make. If the mother wants to get a sonogram, then let her. If she doesn't want to see it, she shouldn't have to. A sonogram could unintentionally create a bond, and emotionally persuade the mother to keep the baby. This law is intruding into privacy and is clearly intended to benefit the pro-life perspective.
ReplyDeleteJohanna Oen per 2
This is definitely a burden on the women. And Indep sonogram with vivid details and pictures is like saying "look at this, look at the life, look at what you're terminating. " not only is it a burden but I feel that it's even more of a burden for a victim of rape. If a victim of sexual salt can only bypass a sonogram if they have reported it and certified it with the police, then only about 15.8 to 35% of the victims going through the abortion process will bypass it. The US Bureau of Justice statistics reported in 2013 that it's believe the only about 15.8 to 35% of victims report their assault. This means that the other about 65% the victims searching for an abortion will not be able to bypass a sonogram. This is unfair and unjust and a complete burden on a victim of rape. It's almost like saying " prove that it happened." And no woman needs to legally justify their trauma. This mandatory sonogram in Texas should not be a regulation and is definitely a burden to the woman. I side with the article.
ReplyDeleteMicaela Fiedler
P.2
I agree with the article that a required sonogram is completely unnecessary and infringes upon the rights of the women who want an abortion. Having the patient informed of the risks is necessary and beneficial, but having a mandatory sonogram is just another method the government is trying to use to guilt trip women on a decision that should be private and completely out of the hands of the government. Forcing women to have the sonogram explained in detail and see the sonogram is a very invasive requirement that the governement should not be able to place. The limited circumstances that exclude women, for example rape, from the sonogram is unreasonable as explained by the author because even with those circumstances many women are afraid to even report the rape and sadly face consequences from this. After reading the aritcle I agree that a sonogram should not be required, but instead left up to the women themselves that go through this process.
ReplyDeleteEmberly Reyes Per. 3
Based on this particular article, I do agree that forceful sonograms is something that is not necessary for an abortion. Although I am pro-life, I understand the feel of both sides of the argument. For example, these sonograms serve a purpose to women in showing how important the decision of having an abortion is because the woman is basically taking away a life from entering the world; therefore being a decision that needs to be thought out deeply. However, with this article, I see how the government is using the sonograms as an "undue burden" to women as if women don't already have a difficult time deciding whether they want to keep the baby or not; why force her sonogram to her in described detail? It as no medical value. Again, based on this article, if a woman wants to have a sonogram before undergoing an abortion, that should be her own choice. The government should not be allowed to intrude/shame a woman's decision into keeping a baby she feels she cannot support or want.
ReplyDeleteAnnalyn Arevalo p.3
I agree with this article. I feel like there is no need for a sonogram. This just puts more of a burden and guilt on the woman by having to get a sonogram. There is no real reason to having one, the choice should be theirs. Although states are alowed to regate abortions, there can be no "undue burden" on the woman, and since Texas is a pro-life state, they made this regulation in order to guilt trip the woman getting an abortion. I believe if they really want to get a sonogram, that soley should be the womans choice...
ReplyDelete-Christian L. (Per. 2)
Making a woman undergo a sonogram before permitting her to have an abortion is unethical. It is a form or guilt-tripping and psychological abuse. If a woman has made her way to a doctor's in hope of pursuing an abortion, thought must have gone into it making her believe it is the best choice for her. The 24 hour waiting period is reasonable, and providing her with procedural information is more than beneficial. Those who are condemned by their doctor will often continue to attempt to follow through with the abortion, which ends up harming not only the fetus the doctor was trying to save but also the woman who went to dangerous measures to end the pregnancy. By trying to micromanage the lives of women, privacy is invaded by the state and is unethical and should not be allowed.
ReplyDeleteKristina Heisser period 3
If they are excusing sonograms for rape victims does that mean they are excusing the women from education about their abortion or do sonograms have no purpose? They don’t really have purpose if a sonogram can be excused because doesn’t every women have the right to be educated about their abortion process. They are using sonograms as an excuse to influence women into stopping their abortions. I believe that the mandatory sonogram and hearing of the fetus is an undue burden on the female. Females have the right to choose whether to keep their baby or not because they have their reasonings on the situations as well. Mandatory sonograms are not ok they can influence the women through guilt and emotions and since the women usually have a reason to abort its going to hurt the child later on if they are kept. Think about all the children in foster care, the foster system is not good anywhere all these children dying daily from starvation and poverty because there parents couldn’t take care of them. Life is gift but sometimes their is a consequence in giving the gift.
ReplyDeleteViktoria Kuladzhyan p.2
I agree with the article completely. Making women have an ultrasound before they can abort is a highly undue burden. Yes, it does give you information about the baby/ zygote/ fetus, but I think ultrasounds are mainly for women who want to get to know their baby better. I don't believe that it should be forced upon if the mother wants to abort. Having to listen to the babies heartbeat also is a burden. It connects the mother to the baby which in turn make her decision unclear on whether she would still want to abort. I think the only reason why a mother, who wants to abort, would need an ultrasound is if her life was in danger of if the mother or government was unsure how long the woman has been pregnant for.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Maly.p2
I think a sonogram shall be mandatory even though they come to the hospital to receive the operation they are taking away a life whether its in the 1st trimester or not so the doctors should make sure the person is sure of there decision because everything is meant for a reason and that fetus has a voyage ahead of them that will never be able to be accomplished some may say its unethical but its only to have 100% certainty that the woman wants to go through with what's happening but being pro life may affect their privacy as a woman who has a right to her own decision.
ReplyDeleteNoah Gentry
Period 3
I agree with the article because having sonograms be mandatory in order for a woman to obtain an abortion seems to be adding an undue burden on the mother (violating Planned Parenthood vs. Casey). Some women may already be having a painful experience with the abortion process (if they were impregnated by rape, sexual assault, etc) and seeing the fetus could lead to increased trauma on their part. If a sonogram is not required for medical purposes, why does it need to be required for an abortion? I do agree on how the government should inform women on the scientific aspects of abortion so the women receiving them are fully knowledgeable but these mandatory sonograms are going too far and seem to just serve to change the woman's mind so she'll decide to not have an abortion. The government should not try to strike down a woman's right to have an abortion by changing her choice and instead just regulate abortion in a reasonable way such as providing her with the information she needs and the protection she deserves. The majority of our government is male (who don't carry children) and it doesn't make sense to me as to how they think they are fit to decide what a woman can do with her body.
ReplyDeleteMary Saba P2
Due to the fact the sonogram is not medically needed/recommended it should not be forced upon women undergoing the procedure. It is states' way to further complicate the surgery process. The sonogram is both intrusive and degrading; the disguised method of shaming should not be required or considered in any way.
ReplyDelete-Myana Fields (period 3)
I entirely side with the article's stance. Forcing women seeking an abortion to undergo a sonogram is a form of persuasion and an infringement upon the rights women have been entitled to. Texas is purposely creating potentially damaging obstacles for women. I completely understand that a pregnant woman should be informed about the process and things that concern her health and well-being but a doctor and government's advice and participation should be none other than medical. We as a nation have decided on many occasions that laws should not be created specifically to target one group. This compulsion is clearly an action against women and against the choices they have been granted. To distinguish between which women must and which don't have to get a sonogram is violating Roe v Wade. I mean, you're essentially forcing a woman to go to the police, leave behind her anonymity, and face the consequences that follow. It's ironic how history repeats itself. America was once using these oh so subtle restrictions to keep the black population from voting. To ignore the fact that this is people pushing their ideologies and political agendas down women's throats is to ignore the plight of women throughout history.
ReplyDelete-Tasmia Hussain
P3
I already have a strong opinion on abortion. But with "mandatory" sonograms for abortion there are many factors and things to consider. To begin with remember that sonograms are a medical procedure used to observe or monitor a fetus, for a variety of reasons. If a doctor find is necessary, or best to preform a sonogram prior to an abortion for medical reasons, and if the medical community supports sonograms ass being a nessicary step to properly preforming an abortion. then i support it, I'm all for safe, well informed, women health especially in regards to abortion. The part I find unnecessary and strictly ideologically driven is where the law requires doctors to describe in detail the sonograms to the women and the require a specific timed wait of 24 hours. There regulations serve no medical purpose. i understand a wait time on abortion, almost all medical procedures have wait times. But i don't see forcing a women to wait 24 hours for her procedure under the hidden pretense of, in combination with the mandatory sonograms, guiltily her out of the procedure. Chances are shes all ready gone through strenuous consideration of having an abortion before acting on it.
ReplyDeleteashleigh correz p.3
I do agree with the article and believe that forcing a woman by law to have a sonogram before receiving an abortion is an undue burden. This can be classified as undue burden because it emotionally persuades a mother towards a chpice that she may not necessarily want. It is a deliberate act to alter a mother's choice and is unconstitutional. It also goes against the court's decision in Roe v Wade, where implied privacy is given to mothers. The use of this method is heavily favored by pro-life but it is an unconstitutional one, seperating beliefs from what is constitutionally acceptable can be difficult but the law of the land is what is ultimately upheld at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Slmani P2
I found the article to be too biased to draw a just opinion from. After I researched and read the law of SECTION 1. Section 171.002, Health and Safety Code and reviewed both sides of the case Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services v. Lakey, I was able to come to a conclusion. Going into it, I have to say, I did not find receiving a sonogram as an undue burden. But upon reading into the law, there were over 25 things the doctors were required to explain and show the patient that can all be argued together as having the underlying purpose of convincing the patient out of undergoing abortion, and often used diction in the law to portray their personal beliefs, such as referring to the fetus as an unborn child throughout the law. Whether or not I agree with the motive behind it, the question at hand is the constitutionality of such law. And as I reviewed the case, the plaintiff argues that it against the first amendment right to free speech on behalf of the doctors, and that it goes past the necessity clause of Roe vs. Wade, arguing that they are forced to deliver the state's pro-life message to the patient before undergoing the abortion, and that it is not necessary and beyond undue burden. The state argues that they are just making sure they are doing the necessary informing to the patient before they undergo the operation. A very similar case took place in North Carolina, and fighting against a very alike law, under the same defense, the 4th circuit claimed that it went beyond reasonable informing and ruled the law unconstitutional. But with Texas, after reading the case, I found the defense for the law was on no grounds but the court basically dismissed the claims, and once taken to the more conservative 5th circuit court, they also dismissed the case without showing how the law was truly constitutional. After reviewing all the cases and law, regardless of personal opinion on the matter, and in accordance to current national precedence, I do believe the law should have been ruled unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete-Issa A. Sweis; period 2
so prior to reading this i did not think that mandatory sonograms would be a HUGE deal just because abortions are medical procedures and should be treated as such, however i completely disagree with the constitutionality/legality of forcing the woman to listen to the doctor go into full detail about the state ofthe fetus as well as having to wait 24 hours to make a final decision. this is an infringement on the woman's ability to choose what she wants to do with her body and it's not ok
ReplyDeletekieran jackson p3
Mandatory sonograms are infringing on a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants an abortion. Although sonograms may appear to be a effort to inform the mother, it is clearly just another way for the government to stop the mother from aborting her child. Why should a woman be informed about how the heartbeat of her child sounds? Is it really necessary? I don't think so. It seems to me that sonograms are a method by the government to form an emotional attachment between mother and child. I don't see any other purpose behind mandatory sonograms. Unlike procedural lectures, the information presented in sonograms is not useful to the mother. It just forces her to rethink her decision and guilt-trips her to the point where she is unable to follow through with the abortion. By legalizing mandatory sonograms, the government is invading the privacy of women.
ReplyDelete-Susi Le, P.2
I definitely agree that it is not the government's place to make these kinds of restrictions. Sure it may be Ok for them to require a sonogram, but in the instance at had it definitely feels as though the state is forcing a doctor to promote a certain narrative. I feel that sonograms could be constitutionally ok, but not in this implimentation...
ReplyDeletereese Jones
P.3
(Sorry for the late post i was at work)
The idea of forcing woman to get a sonogram the way that they have to is absurd. It is obvious that the whole idea behind it is just to have the woman leans towards having the baby. Also, I am sure there are some other liberties that certain doctors take if they themselves are pro life. This idea is simply unfair towards the pregnant woman and we shouldn't be messing with their heads…its their sole decision on what to do and thats that.
ReplyDeleteColton Lynch P.3
This is not the governments decision to make. while they can regulate it to make it more difficult i believe that it is not their right to mess with abortions. I do agree with the mandatory sonogram and 24 hour waiting period because it may allow the mother to be more informed and to be able to think about it longer without making an emotional decision that they may not agree with in the future. I will agree to non biased counseling but if you force someone to go through religious counseling then i am completely against that idea. The mother should have the final decision but should be able to have enough time, information, and thinking to be able to make a decision she will be comfortable with. Regulation to an extent that leads to the mothers choice is what i agree with but regulation that favors a certain side and doesn't allow the mother to think for her self is a completely wrong way to go.
ReplyDeleteAntonis Panagiotis Christodoulou
per.2
I agree with the article. Although there is nothing wrong with providing information about a procedure, that a sonogram is not necessary. Requiring the doctor to explain the sonogram in detail while having the screen displayed to the patient is a little excessive. In my opinion this is placing an undue burden on the process of abortion as the sonogram procedure seems to serve as a way to emotionally dissuade abortion. The sonograms are simply not needed in the procedure of abortion and requiring it is just an unnecessary invasion of Texas' government in the lives of their citizens.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Noyola P.2
It's honestly not even up to the government! This is sick. Honestly sick. Of doctors don't say you need one, why is the government making you have one? It doesn't make any sense.
ReplyDelete(This is my fifth time trying to post this. It wouldn't let me post last night so I wanted to try this morning)
Alyssa Fejeran
Period 2
I do not believe that the government should have involvement in this area. Abortion is solely a decision that only a woman can make and is personal to her. A sonogram is only to make her feel guilty about this decision she is about to make. And all these details the doctor will be describing can be described in a way that almost seem murderous and make the mother feel even more guilty. That 24 hours is nothing more than to make the mother think about her decision in even more depth affecting her decision in the end. This is no where near up to the government and it's terrible what they're doing.
ReplyDeleteChloe Pena P. 2
(3rd time trying to post)
DeleteI believe that mandatory sonograms should not be required for an abortion. I believe that this requirement is a blatant tactic to emotionally guilt trip vulnerable women into changing their decisions. Although this falls into regulations, I believe that this doesn't aide or make the woman more knowledgeable about what she is doing. I don't see how a sonogram is aiding or teaching the patient anything about the risks or side effects of an abortion. The requirement for a sonogram poses an unnecessary obstacle for women which serves no beneficial purpose which is why I believe this law is unconstitutional and should be expunged.
ReplyDeleteChika Ezeh P2
I do agree with the article completely. I don't believe that a sonogram before an abortion is necessary nor should it be mandatory. A required sonogram is most definitely a pro-life choice. This just creates another unnecessary obstacle for the woman along with the physical and emotional obstacles she must face involving the life changing decision. It in no way benefits the woman or the baby by forcing her to grow a connection to a baby she can't keep. You have to think about more than just the woman. If she can't take care of this baby, a sonogram will only make her second guess the abortion which will lead to improper care for the baby anyways. Since it's already a hear decision to make, why make it harder by making her see the baby?
ReplyDeleteAlexya See P.2 (absent Monday)