{"id":182603,"date":"2018-05-17T09:24:12","date_gmt":"2018-05-17T13:24:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=182603"},"modified":"2018-05-17T02:08:51","modified_gmt":"2018-05-17T06:08:51","slug":"abortion-industry-lies-ultrasound-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-industry-lies-ultrasound-laws\/","title":{"rendered":"The abortion industry lies to women. That’s why we need ultrasound laws."},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

It wasn’t a surprise to learn today that Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton just vetoed an informed consent bill requiring that abortionists offer women the chance to view an ultrasound of their preborn child prior to an abortion<\/a>. After all, Dayton has refused to scrutinize<\/a> Planned Parenthood<\/a>, and is so extreme that in 2012, he nixed a bill<\/a> that would have required state health inspections and licensing for abortion facilities in Minnesota.<\/p>\n

What was<\/em> a bit of a shock was Dayton’s reasoning as to why he vetoed the bill, which would have allowed women to have access to their ultrasounds before they make a decision with life-altering impact. According to the Star Tribune<\/a>, Dayton said a requirement like this would “interfere[] with the doctor-patient relationship, legislating the private conversations that occur about a legal medical procedure,” then incredulously claimed that doctors — including abortionists, apparently — “are already fulfilling their legal, ethical, and professional duties to fully inform their patients of the benefits, risks, and alternatives of any medical procedure.” The Tribune noted that\u00a0opponents of the bill claimed it “was unnecessary because women already have the ability to view an ultrasound….”<\/p>\n

READ: Planned Parenthood’s ultrasound problem: Good for harvesting organs, bad for business<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

But is any of this true? Do<\/em> women actually already have the ability to view an ultrasound? And are those “doctors” committing abortions really<\/em> telling women everything they should know about the so-called “medical procedure” they’re about to choose? One word of advice: when it comes to the abortion industry, never assume anything<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Claiming that allowing a woman access to her own ultrasound actually “interferes with the doctor-patient relationship” is absurd. Ultrasound is standard procedure before an abortion to obtain a gestational age and to rule out other possible conditions such as ectopic pregnancy (despite the frequent, hyperbolic comparisons to “rape”<\/a> you might have heard from incredibly deceptive abortion advocates). Why shouldn’t the patient be shown the scan? <\/em>It’s her medical record, after all.<\/p>\n

If you were having eye surgery, for example, wouldn’t you want to see all of the scans that doctors used to diagnose your condition? Wouldn’t you want to have the procedure fully explained, along with any possible risks and complications of the procedure? Of course you would. And legitimate medical providers are typically more than willing to give you all the information and answer any questions you might have before you sign consent forms.<\/p>\n

But when it comes to abortion, keeping women in the dark is the order of the day.<\/p>\n

1. Do women visiting abortion facilities really “have the ability to view an ultrasound”?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In one documented case, Planned Parenthood gave a woman an ultrasound<\/a> of her baby upon request — but the problem was, the ultrasound only appeared to show a round blob that looked nothing like a baby. That’s because it was merely a scan and measurement of the baby’s skull<\/em> — which, of course, was pertinent to the abortion facility, as this body part has to fit through the dilated cervix. It’s the only information an abortion facility would need to know, since the facility’s job is to remove the child piece by piece:<\/p>\n