This is not my story. I'm past my childbearing years. But I do live in Texas, and I did find this horrifying.
The mother and father of this child wanted this baby; they were prepared to give this child as good a life as possible in this world. But Mother Nature, or God, or simple molecular genetics, (over the fold)
In their lack of compassion and their politically-correct hard-right "Christian Conservative" unwisdom, the Texas Legislature interfered with this woman's health care unwarrantably -- even though she was not a poor woman, not a single mother, not a teenager unexpectedly pregnant.
This is why we fight.
provisions in the law that require abortion doctors to perform a sonogram 24 hours in advance, play the fetal heartbeat aloud, show the sonogram to the patient and describe the fetus’s features, including limb length and the development of any internal organs. Doctors must do this even if they feel it is inappropriate or medically unnecessary, or if the patient asks them not to. The only exception granted is for patients who sign a form stating they are the victim of rape or incest and that they intend to pursue legal action, unless they believe doing so would put them in physical danger. Clinics must keep these intimate affidavits on file for years.Unconstitutional to allow a woman who's had two sonograms that day and been told the child she wants is anencephalic and cannot survive to term -- risking an in utero death and her own future fertility if not life itself, absent termination -- from having to hear a detailed description of every phase of the fetus' condition a third time and then wait 24 more hours for the medical procedure she needs.
Sounds like a horrifying invasion of privacy, right?
Nope, say pro-life groups. It’s just informed consent. This is about empowering women, they say. What could be wrong with making sure women really, really understand what they’re about to do?
Last fall, Judge Sparks granted a temporary injunction against the law after pro-choice groups sued, claiming it violated doctors’ First Amendment rights by forcing them to deliver politically motivated speech. But Judge Edith Jones, of the 5th Circuit wrote that it and other so- called “informed consent” laws are fine “if they require truthful, nonmisleading, and relevant disclosures.”
Then, couldn’t it be considered “truthful, nonmisleading and relevant” to let women approaching a “crisis pregnancy center” know what such centers do and do not provide?
Nope, say pro-life groups. That’s unconstitutional.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL NOT TO FORCE A WOMAN THROUGH THIS AS SHE LOSES HER CHILD:
The doctor and nurse were professional and kind, and it was clear that they understood our sorrow. They too apologized for what they had to do next. For the third time that day, I exposed my stomach to an ultrasound machine, and we saw images of our sick child forming in blurred outlines on the screen.We MUST win -- we must STOP the evangelical theocratic "pro-life" liars. We just have to.
“I’m so sorry that I have to do this,” the doctor told us, “but if I don’t, I can lose my license.” Before he could even start to describe our baby, I began to sob until I could barely breathe. ... “Here I see a well-developed diaphragm and here I see four healthy chambers of the heart...”
I closed my eyes and waited for it to end, as one waits for the car to stop rolling at the end of a terrible accident.
When the description was finally over, the doctor held up a script and said he was legally obliged to read me information provided by the state.It was about the health dangers of having an abortion, the risks of infection or hemorrhage, the potential for infertility and my increased chance of getting breast cancer. I was reminded that medical benefits may be available for my maternity care and that the baby’s father was liable to provide support, whether he’d agreed to pay for the abortion or not.