![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
primroseburrowsTomorrow, March 17th, the Indiana House Public Policy and Veterans' Affairs Committee will hear Senate Bill 76 in room 156-D of the statehouse at 10am. SB 76 would set up another unnecessary hurdle for a woman seeking an abortion, specifically an addition to the "Informed Consent" law. But SB 76 could become much worse: it could become the home of the invasive, unconstitutional ideas this committee already heard in House Bill 1607.
About SB 76, they say, SB 76 would require a health care provider to offer a pregnant woman the opportunity to view an ultrasound image or hear the heart tones of the fetus before performing an abortion. This bill does nothing to improve the quality of care received by patients. Indiana’s informed consent law already insures that patients receive full information on the abortion procedure, possible risks, and alternatives available. All Indiana abortion providers already perform an ultrasound before any abortion, to confirm the gestation of the fetus; all patients are welcome to view the ultrasound at that time. However, a fetoscope cannot detect a heartbeat until 16—20 weeks gestation, and even newer Doppler technology cannot measure heart tones until 8-10 weeks. 58% of abortions are performed by 8 weeks’ gestation; with advances in surgical technique and the availability of abortion by medication, the percentage of early abortions will only increase.
They're talking offer, not force. The patient can say no. The 'hurdle' is saying no to the ultrasound. What's wrong with this idea?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The problem is...
Date: 2005-03-17 04:59 pm (UTC)The idea is to set up hurdles not just for the patient but for the providers. So you make the provider provide an ultrasound. That means that the provider has to have more ultrasound machines and more staff. In all likelihood it is also designed to create the need for more office visits before a procedure. More times a woman has to make arrangements, cross protest lines, time to have her license plate traced. Pile on the "informed consent" requirements one "reasonable" addition at a time just to make it harder.
The informed consent law to which this is an amendment by the way already requires 2 visits in the presence of the physician who will be prefroming the abortion.
As it stands currently there is no obstacle to a woman asking for the ultrasound. In fact the ultrasounds are being performed and any patient has a right to see/hear their own ultrasound.
This is not about increasing access to medical care -- it's about increasing the bureaucracy around doctors and patients who want a legal safe medical procedure.