During the first pre-abortion sonogram legislation that took place on February 9, 2011, there were several reasons why physicians were in opposition to the issue. In the article Physicians oppose pre-abortion sonogram bill in Texas Senate hearing, Michele Gilbert, a gynecologist, argues that there is no reliable evidence that supports the rate of abortion changing if sonograms are viewed. Other than the fact that they don't have any impact, they also intrude on "doctor-patient relationships" and the bill itself is very vague. Issues with extreme circumstances such as rape, incest, or fetal anomalies are not stated in the bill.
Critics of the bill say that this law is just a guilt trip to try and convince women out of getting abortions. Others say that it's merely a safety precaution and if a woman chooses not to hear the heart beat or view the sonogram, they don't have to. According to a study at two different abortion clinics in Canada, 73 percent of women wanted to see the sonogram if given the chance, 84 percent said that seeing the sonogram didn't make it any harder, and none of the women decided to change their mind about their decision.
I think this article is worth reading because there is a lot of talk about the issue, but statistics say that it would basically be a pointless and a waste of money. If professionals in that field say mandatory sonograms have little to no impact at all, why question it? Why waste the time and money on something that isn't going to make a difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment