State Health Department Now Enforcing Sonogram Law
The Department of State Health Services has released guidelines for women's health clinics and will begin enforcing Texas' abortion sonogram law, agency officials said Monday night.
"We'll be providing technical assistance along the way, but facilities need to follow the law, and we’ll be checking up on that during our facility inspections," DSHS spokeswoman Carrie Williams said.
According to DSHS memos sent to women's health clinics on Monday:
— As of October, the abortion doctor, not an ultrasound technician, had to meet the woman seeking an abortion at least 24 hours ahead of the procedure to perform ...
Comments (14)
Jesse R. Ayala via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Absurdity from the party of "smaller government."
Cindy Wesch via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Clockwork Orange. What's next?
Bambi Clark via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Liberty? Freedom? Smaller government? Or HYPOCRITES?
Laura Watts Kinnison via Texas Tribune on Facebook
How very sad for women's reproductive rights! There needs to be some kind of exam for men so they can get a Viaga prescription. Something invasive.
Inv. A. Bryant
Sonagrams have been required long before perry knew what one was. He either wants them born, murders them, or imprisons them with life without parole. He is not going to support them, you and I will with our taxes. Prisons are big business. What a logical Christian he is.
Barbara Verby Hartstein via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Yep, all of the above.
Renée Greene Mathew via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Rather they spend our tax dollars inspecting nursing homes and child care facilities. Unbelievable.
Kathy Schmidt via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Laura. A Senator in Virginia actually tacked an amendment onto their sonogram bill that required a rectal exam and cardiac stress test for men wanting a prescription for ED drugs. What's funny as heck is that it almost passed. In Virginia. In a Republican, male majority Senate. It fell by two votes. Tells you how closely they read those bills before they vote, doesn't it.
Lee Crites
Back in the early 80's, I debated a woman from NOW about abortion "rights." She said that all they wanted was a guarantee that a women could get an abortion through the entire first trimester. I called her a liar to her face, and nobody argued that point -- even her. Everyone knew she was lying. Remember all of those mind-numbing debates on "viability" of the child? When was it "viable" or not? Sometimes that seems like ancient history -- but it was only 30 years ago.
There is very little during the first trimester that resembles a child. It is even possible that you cannot hear the heartbeat, although a skilled technician can often pull it out towards the 10 - 12 week period. But the law requires a doctor to do it, not a technician, so it is possible that the average doctor might not be able to. So at 12 weeks, what you'd see is some kind of odd looking blob that might resemble lots of things besides a human. It is reasonable to assume that a woman looking at this would be uneffected and the abortion would continue.
When you start to get into the later-term abortions, though, where a strong heartbeat and a human child looking image appears, the mother might have second thoughts. My guess is that is the goal.
There are huge waiting lists for adoptions. Children are not available because they are simply being aborted. If the mother doesn't want it (her choice -- no issues with that), then at that point she could consider delivering the child and allowing it to be placed with parents who are praying daily for the chance to have a baby.
The current step in the abortion industry is "late-term" abortions, where they almost deliver the whole, fully-formed child, and then kill it. The next step is called "placental abortions." This means that the child (or fetus, as it would still be called) could be "aborted" until the placenta was delivered -- giving the doctor time (10 - 20 minutes) to "test" the baby after it was born, and allow the mother to "choose" to "abort" her baby then.
Like it or not, we are a society where infanticide is more commonplace than ever before in recorded history -- more common that ALL examples from ALL previous societies COMBINED. So long as being an unborn human entity is considered a capital crime with no due process afforded the "criminal" (meaning the unborn human entity), we will continue to openly practice this infanticide.
The "sonogram law" is not a perfect solution, but if it affords some women the chance to make a choice to save the child's life, and if those women then put the child up for adoption, then it could be a win-win situation.
Before you start blaming people you don't like and making all sorts of hateful comments, just remember this: infertile couples, and their families, are tax-paying voters, too.
Linda Skoda
God gave us a conscience. He did not tell us what to do. Human beings have the right of decision and must answer for that decision. Government should get out of family interference.
The Presidency is in the hands of the people. If the people want to vote for a person that has no honor and has proven to lie to gain what "He" wants the country to be, against the Constitution of the united states of America so be it. But remember the Tea Party!
If a person can buy the Presidency, who will care about the people?
Let me just say that if you are an American and want this country to survive and prosper that the only candidate that has mentioned following the Constitution and has followed the Constitution as example against all odds is Ron Paul. He truly cares about America and the people, enough so that he said that he would take the same pay as the average American - Has anyone else said that?
Take the time to research the truth. If the people stand behind Ron Paul he will do his best to restore our values for this country and teach the Corporation that the people are in charge.
Inv. A. Bryant
There are lots of black children up for adoption for couples that want a baby. White babies are adoped out first, then white children with the backs being the last. If you care about the color of their skin, then this is not for those couples.
I would rather not be born if my mother did not want me for any reason, especially if she has an emotional or cannot support a baby. It is extremely hard for a woman to let a baby to after she has had it.
Tiffany Sparks
@Lee Crites: Before you start blaming people you don't like and making all sorts of hateful comments, just remember this: infertile couples, and their families, are tax-paying voters, too.
So we should so we should ban abortions because it will force women to have babies so other people will have babies to adopt. Forced indenturehood?
Tiffany Sparks
Children are considered mentally incompetent to make their own medical & legal decisions and must rely on their guardians. Now Texas women have their own state appointed guardians.
Lee Crites
@Tiffany Sparks: "So we should so we should ban abortions because it will force women to have babies so other people will have babies to adopt. Forced indenturehood?"
After everyone sitting here with me stopped laughing at this so-incredibly-far-out-in-left-field comment, we struggled to try to figure out what in the sam-hill you were trying to say.
* Is it that adopted children are forced into some form of indenture?
* That mothers who give up their children for adoption are selling them as slaves?
I mean really????