Unbelieveable. What an arrogant concept, that women do not fully understand that they are pregnant, but a video projection will drive it home. Pregnancy is one of the most personal, intimate, instinctual processes a woman can go through. And legislators, most of whom will never experience pregnancy, think that they need to show off the latest in medical technology equipment so that women "see" what's going on inside of them? I'm sure they know, thanks, and if they're choosing to terminate that process that's their own damned business.

We've all probably watched enough sitcoms and made-for-TV movies to be saturated with the image of a woman at her ob/gyn's office, blue goo on her stomach, undergoing an ultrasound, staring at an image of her soon-to-be-child for the first time and tearing up with the "realness" of it. I'm sure that can be a beautiful and meaningful moment. But do you think those women only then say "Hey wait a second, there's a potential person inside me, that's fantastic!"? Just like it's not the first time those women realize they are pregnant, a woman in an early pregnancy who wishes to abort does not need to "see" her fetus in order to know it's there.

This practice being imposed on the women of South Carolina is not only wrong and intrusive but it shows just how off the mark legislators are when it comes to understanding pregnancy, and understanding the value of choosing to become a parent. If they did perhaps they would appreciate the importance of *choosing* to carry a baby to term and support it, as opposed to letting a broken condom make the decision. This practice will not make women "fully grasp" that they are pregnant; it will only make them realize the disapproval of those around her. That is the point of this legislation, so let's not call it anything more.

I think if I were intending to have an abortion, something like this would make me even stronger in my resolve to remove the alien parasite growing within. I mean really, don't ultrasound images look like something painted by H.R. Geiger?

I could not agree more with Ms. Clark-Flory concerning the bias in this type of law. If women must view ultrasounds, then it really is only fair that they also be forced to think about the consequences of carrying that baby to term. What are the consequences of pregnancy? What will it be like to have an infant who requires 24 hour care and can't explain its needs in an understandable manner and sends your sleep schedule out the window?

The only difference between these two sets of "consequences" is that we have reliable data on at least some of the latter. There is no way to tell if a woman will regret having an abortion so much that it scars her psychologically.

After the good people of South Carolina strip off a pregnant woman’s (or girl’s) clothes, strap her to a gurney, and smear goo on her abdomen (or insert the probe in her vagina), do you think they will make her actually look at the ultrasound? Perhaps they will force her eyes open by attaching the contraption used in a final scene in A Clockwork Orange.

Don’t say it can’t happen here.

How long it will be legislation is intoduced to force a woman receiving a subscription for the "pill", is required to look at ulrasound images or models of fetuses? Will men required to do the same before a having a vasectomy performed. Will Wlmart be required to have such images next the the rubbers, and cream/foam?

"So should all grown women be treated as baby-eager teenagers and be forced to strap on an Empathy Belly or spend 24 hours with an infant simulator before deciding to have a child?"

Yes. That would in fact be a splendid idea.

What educated women like yourselves often forget is that not everyone (men or women) is as smart as you are, no matter how much it helps your cause to think so. My girlfriend went to high school in Tennessee. By graduation, 3 of her friends had babies and were showing them off the same way that their mouth-breathing boyfriends showed off the rims on their cars. One of them actually named her son "T-Storm".

You can try to convince me all you want that these were mature, intelligent 'women' fully prepared for the consequences of their choices. I'm not buying it.

Should any ambitious legislators try such a move, I would imagine that the first lawsuit would be filed about five minutes later. Heck, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood likely have the necessary pleadings in AutoText already.

An ultrasound is no Kodak moment. It is a medical procedure with a risk (albeit low) of harm that may only be legally performed by a trained and licensed professional (doctor or technician).

The U.S. common law doctrines of self-determination and informed consent hold that any competent adult has the right to make an informed choice to submit to or refuse a medical procedure. Additionally, courts in numerous jurisdictions have held that anyone who performs a medical procedure without consent may be guilty of criminal assault and possibly liable for civil battery.

Apart from the legal issues, permitting compelled medical procedures on competent adults would place us in uncomfortably close company with some of history's worst characters (I will resist the temptation to Godwinize the thread).

I encourage the legislators in question to give it a shot. Hey, lawyers need to pay the bills, too.

Mind you, I think this is a much less restrictive way of trying to restrict abortion than anything else they've come up with. If I'm desperate because I'm pregnant, will an ultrasound really change my mind? No way. Let 'em show me as many pretty pictures as they like - if I want an abortion, I'll get one anyway.

But one does kinda wonder - who is paying for all these ultrasounds? And do the South Carolina taxpayers really need another burden added to their taxes?