UltraLove: The Medical Right Falls Hard for Ultrasounds

You've already met the Religious Right. Now meet its offspring, the Medical Right — ideologically motivated pseudo-medical organizations that are shaping reproductive health care policy and practice to conform to their unscientific beliefs about "the beginning of life."

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has been tracking these organizations on our online Medical Right Watch. Our latest report — "UltraLove: The Medical Right Falls Hard for Ultrasound, Despite Lack of Evidence" — describes the anti-abortion movement's multimillion-dollar immersion into the non-medical use of ultrasound equipment and questions the ethics of using medical diagnostic technology to persuade women to continue a pregnancy. Lost in the craze for non-medical ultrasound imagery is the potential risk to the developing fetus and the impact on vulnerable pregnant women, who are largely left to fend for themselves in sorting out potential health threats, the sufficiency of the exams, and their own personal needs.

The "Fetal Photo" Craze

To get a sense of the "fetal photo" craze, look at the mammoth right-wing "family values" organization, Focus on the Family. It began its Option Ultrasound Program in 2004, investing $4.2 million in a single year to pay for training and ultrasound equipment for crisis pregnancy centers. As of December 2007, the program manager reported that 363 ultrasound machines had been placed in centers and trainings held in 48 states. The National Institute of Family & Life Advocates in Virginia, a Medical Right organization, collected $731,000 in 2006 to provide training and counseling to crisis pregnancy centers that are adding ultrasound equipment. Heartbeat International, which claims 1,100 affiliates, says 460 of its affiliates are now equipped with ultrasound capability.

Anti-abortion advocates for the non-medical use of ultrasound imaging (also called sonography or sonograms) on pregnant women have two basic strategies. One is to equip the estimated 2,500-3,500 crisis pregnancy centers across the country with ultrasound machines, in some cases garnering government aid to pay for them. The other is to pass laws under the guise of "informed consent," which would require abortion clinics and doctors to conduct ultrasounds on pregnant women before providing abortion services. Some of these proposed laws go so far as to require that women view the images.

So-called crisis pregnancy centers offer free sonograms as bait to draw women into their office and claim that ultrasound images are highly effective in dissuading women from abortion. Focus on the Family claims that "research shows" that 89% of women considering abortion change their minds after having an ultrasound and counseling at a crisis pregnancy center. Other claims rely upon anecdotal stories, reprinted in anti-abortion literature, of women at crisis pregnancy centers who change their minds when they see the ultrasound. These stories and statistics have no scientific basis or support. No reliable study has measured the effect of ultrasound on a woman's decision whether or not to bear a child, according to a search of academic and medical literature and inquiries to research organizations, including The Guttmacher Institute. In fact, the opposite may be the case. Reports from abortion clinics indicate that women who have an ultrasound do not change their minds about having the procedure.

Medical Consequences of Ultrasound Imaging

Although ultrasound imaging is generally considered safe and is important in dating pregnancy (especially in a medication or "pill" abortion regimen using RU-486 or Mifeprex), determining the position of the fetus and whether there are multiple fetuses, ectopic pregnancy or fetal abnormalities, there are risks. The professional organization for sonography, The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM), rejects non-diagnostic uses as does the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the equipment, although no action has been taken against crisis pregnancy centers and there is little evidence of regulatory oversight.

In objecting to the purchase of ultrasound equipment by actor Tom Cruise for personal use in monitoring partner Katie Holmes' pregnancy, the AIUM reaffirmed its statement of "prudent use" that "strongly discourages the non-medical use of ultrasound for psychosocial or entertainment purposes. The use of either two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound to only view the fetus, obtain a picture of the fetus, or determine the fetal gender without a medication indication is inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice." The statement, published in the January 2006 "Sound Waves," was endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and several other medical organizations.

AIUM also opposed the operation of portrait studios that make "keepsake" fetal sonograms. In 2004, the FDA warned against the "keepsake" non-medical uses of fetal ultrasound, calling it "risky business." "Expectant women and their families need to know that the long-term effects of repeated ultrasound exposures on the fetus are not fully known. In light of all that remains unknown, having a prenatal ultrasound for non-medical reasons is not a good idea," according to the FDA magazine.

Harm from excessive fetal exposure to ultrasound or at high frequencies has been the subject of some laboratory studies. In 2004, the FDA noted that fetal ultrasound scanning is considered safe, but "can't be considered completely innocuous." The FDA wrote: "(U)ltrasound is a form of energy, and even at low levels, laboratory studies have shown it can produce physical effects in tissue, such as jarring vibrations and a rise in temperature." A study released in 2006 found disruption of the normal migration of brain cells in fetal mice, which, if it occurred in humans, could potentially cause autism, mental retardation, epilepsy and learning disabilities. Additionally, studies of humans exposed to ultrasound have shown possible adverse effects in growth retardation, dyslexia, delayed speech development.

Even Focus on the Family's aggressively anti-abortion Physicians Resource Council issued a statement on the use of Doppler ultrasound in the first trimester in 2005, cautioning that it should only be used in "a case in which the mother is considering the option of abortion but might be more inclined to choose life after hearing the sound of the fetal heart."

Who's Administering the Sonography?

Another concern arises from the operation of fetal sonography by untrained or inexperienced operators who fail to diagnose or inform a woman about a serious condition. "Failure to diagnose" a fetal sonogram leads to a large number of medical malpractice claims. While the NIFLA advises pregnancy centers that ultrasound can be performed only by trained personnel and by a doctor's recommendation, first-hand accounts by crisis pregnancy center workers indicate that physicians may be distant participants in the process, if involved at all. A first-hand story carried online by Heartlink, the Focus on the Family ultrasound website, describes a center in which an impatient woman sought an ultrasound. The story describes how a sonographer extended herself to come from home to do it. "The sonographer never knows what she'll see when she does a scan …. This window into her womb showed her a darling little 14 week, 1 day old, bouncing, dancing baby," the article reports. Nowhere in the piece is the slightest indication of a doctor ordering the ultrasound or interpreting it.

Aside from liability issues, a survey published in the Journal of Ultrasound Medicine highlighted another potential problem: patients who forgo medical and diagnostic ultrasounds because they have had a non-medical ultrasound. A majority of those surveyed — obstetricians and radiologists in Maine — found this to be a worry. Majorities also believed that non-medical ultrasounds might leave fetal anomalies undetected and give patients false reassurances. More than one-third believed that licensing boards should discipline those conducting the non-medical ultrasounds.

With these concerns, why does the Medical Right staunchly support ultrasound technology for non-medical uses? At its core, ultrasound relies on the same fetal imagery that has roiled the anti-abortion community from the outset – whether "The Silent Scream" or giant fetus posters hoisted outside abortion clinics. In this high-tech culture, the Medical Right hopes that ultrasound will be the digital magical potion that will end abortion, but their premises, ethics and evidence are distinctly un-sound.

For the complete report, "UltraLove: Medical Right Falls Hard for Ultrasound, Despite Lack of Evidence," visit the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice's Medical Right Watch.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact press@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    1. It’s more harmful for the fetus to undergo a sonnogram than to be aborted….

    2. “Patients who forgo medical and diagnostic ultrasounds because they have had a non-medical ultrasound” are a risk factor. Only they are not because the thesis of your article is that these are women who would have merrily gone on their way to kill their child had they not been baited and switched into seeing the sonnogram of the child.

    I may have been born in the night, but it wasn’t last night.

    I won’t even start on the bait and switch of the abortion clinics and their feeding agencies. It’s about the benjamin$$$$$.

  • invalid-0

    This scenario reminds me of a movie I’ve seen.

    The despicable villain insists that the leading man in captivity remain unharmed. It would be more satisfying when he was later tortured and killed.

    In the movie, our dashing hero escapes death, storms the castle, and rescues the princess.

    In real life, ultrasound, with it’s small share of health risks, may be what saves the unborn child’s life.

  • invalid-0

    In countries where male children are more valued, the ultrasound is used to determine if the fetus is female. Then that fetus is promptly aborted so the woman can try again for a “more desireable” male.

  • invalid-0

    It’s poorly researched propaganda for the hugely funded money mill of the abortion industry.

    Pregnancy Help Medical Clinics are not performing “fun” ultrasounds with no medical basis. The sonographers are trained medical professionals operating under the standing orders of a physician. The scans are read by qualified physicians.

    A positive pregnancy test is sufficient medical indication for an ultrasound to A)detect an intrauterine pregnancy, B)detect fetal heartbeat, and C)determine fetal age.

    The difference in the exams performed at abortion clinics and those performed at life affirming pregnancy centers is that the pregnancy centers share the truth of the development of the baby in the womb. The image is not hidden from the mother.

    Life affirming pregnancy centers have no financial stake in the decision a woman makes. Abortionists are selling a service. PHMC’s are privately funded and provide free services to their patients. Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US, charges for their service and yet they still receive federal funds in excess of $250 million a year.

    • invalid-0

      It’s poorly researched propaganda for the hugely funded money mill of the abortion industry.
      Not to use biased language or anything, but your message sounds like poorly researched propaganda for the hugely funded money mill of the ANTI-abortion industry.
      I’d really like to know just how many doctors are full-time “abortionists”, and how much money they make from performing abortions. Dr. Barnett Slepian, who was murdered by an anti-abortion fanatic (or “justly executed by a hero” in pro-life parlance), was an OB/GYN who also performed abortions at a women’s clinic. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m willing to guess that he made a lot more money actually delivering babies than he made performing abortions.
      Now I admit that, in our litigious society, the cost of malpractice insurance is very high for an OB/GYN, probably among the highest for the medical profession. And I assume it’s much higher than for an “abortionist”. But that’s probably more than made up for by the cost of life insurance.
      The image is not hidden from the mother.
      Of course the image is not hidden from the mother. The whole cynical purpose is to use emotional blackmail to get her to change her mind. I can just see it: “Look at this beautiful, mysterious, miraculous life developing within you. Are you sure you want to destroy it? If you are, absolutely, positively sure, that you want to snuff out this beautiful, wondrous, unique, unborn child who is growing and developing fingers and toes even as we speak, please watch the video and read the rest of this document describing in excruciating detail every conceivable–no pun intended–medical, psychological and emotional hazard of abortion, no matter how remote, complete with graphic color images of aborted fetuses, compiled without bias or agenda and entirely for your informed consent, and sign on the bottom. And initial all the pages. Oh, and right here next to the pictures. In triplicate. And, finally, whether you choose to keep your baby or not, this attractively framed ultrasound image of your unborn child is yours to keep.”

  • harry834

    "Life affirming pregnancy centers have no financial stake in the decision a woman makes."

    Perhaps not a financial stake, but definitely an ideological one. Every time a woman chooses to abort, the "life-affirmers" cry murder, so yes, they have a stake in blocking the woman's choice over her body.

  • harry834

    as many pro-choice women do, then the excessive sonagrams do matter in terms of this pro-choice woman having a safe pregnancy and childbirth.

    In reference to the benajamin motivation, the pro-lifers aren't exactly unbiased themselves. Read my comment below.

    You only care about the fetus. If a woman has to carry it against her will, you'll care less.

  • harry834

    could account for a government policy that forbids safe and legal abortion. Resulted in the deaths of thousands of women before Roe.They were sisters, friends, mothers, humans trying to make the best of their lives, given their circumstances. You won't help any mother who bears against her will. But you don't care, because these humans are just incubators to you.

  • invalid-0

    British Columbia conducts ultrasounds, but have a policy against divulging the sex of the baby to the parents. This is due to the large East-Asian population, and common occurrences of gender selection abortions (as Canada has no abortion legislation to prevent this). China also found a way to deal with this problem.

  • invalid-0

    How can you consider a sonogram to create a bonding experience between child and mother, essentially saving the child’s life, excessive? My understanding is that there is but one sonogram conducted for this purpose. Can we keep things in perspective here?

  • invalid-0

    How dare we give a woman all the facts about what stage of development her fetus has reached before she goes and makes a decision to abort what pro-abortionists have told her is nothing but a clump of cells.

    How dare we have ideological stake in the matter.

    How dare we affirm life.

    Allowing a woman the opportunity to be more informed IS offering her a choice. So essentially, you are blocking her from making an informed choice by preventing full disclosure of the information she should have access to!

  • invalid-0

    Who taught you all these lies…these lies about abortion being pro-woman, and pregnancy being pro-fetus? Who made you believe that someone who is pro-life can’t also be a feminist. Susan B. Anthony is turning over in her grave as we speak, I’m sure.

    If a woman feels like nothing more than an incubator whilst pregnant, it is because of people like you who have convinced her that she has lost something of herself by allowing a baby to begin its life in her womb. If women had the respect they deserved, they would all have the audacity to look you straight in the face and tell you what a misogynistic message you are propagating.

  • harry834

    1. that a feminist can be pro-life doesn't make her right.

    2. if women had the respect she deserved, she'd be able to decide for herself if she wanted to abort.

    Suppose she didn't want to look at the sonogram. Would you force her?

    Also if a woman's decided to abort, then yes its excessive to to do a sonogram to get her to "bond with her child", and the attempt to do so is an attempt to sway her.

    The problem is you don't think there's anything worth saving when a women's asking for an abortion. When she chooses this, she's trying to preserve her own life, her own fate, her own control over her steps forward.

    And if a woman is required to be pregnant, without the option of termination, without the decision in her own hands, then yes she has lost something of herself, and its the pro-life forces that took it away, whether or not their motivation was money or ideology.

    About money motives: should we not trust any doctor simply because they charge a fee?

    Here are some women who'll tell YOU with audacity that abortion was the right choice for them:


    You probably have your own stories of women who regret their abortions. The moral of the story: women have widely different experiences after having the procedure, beyond even the "i'm sorry" vs "im not sorry" camps. There's a wide range inbetween. We don't tell women what to feel. We just ensure the option is there for every woman, which does include pro-life women who never confess to their teammates.


    • invalid-0

      If someone can call themselves feminist and ‘pro-life’, then anyone else who wants to take other choices away from women has just as much right to claim the feminist label.

      Then feminism, of course, eventually loses its meaning when all these are added together – but they have no less claim to do so than someone who is ‘pro-life’.

      • invalid-0

        To quote someone I respect on the issue: “The idea that abortion is a woman’s right was always just an opinion. There’s no basis in law, in logic or in our constitution. And there’s certainly no basis in early feminist thought.”

        I dare say that pro-lifers need not adopt a feminist label, as it is rightfully theirs, even though pro-abortionists have claimed it for themselves somewhere along the way.

    • invalid-0

      1) “That a feminist can be pro-life doesn’t make her right.” This statement is true. But it does show that a woman can be pro-life because she believes it is in the best interests of the woman.

      2) If a woman was not at an estimated higher than 50% risk of being coerced by a parent or partner into having an abortion, we could trust that she actually IS making the decision for herself. Currently, women viewing sonograms are those who are taking the steps to become fully informed before making their “choice.” Shielding from or denying a woman the chance to see the sonogram is denying her the opportunity to make an educated choice. I’d even go so far as to say, if a woman refuses to look at a sonogram, there’s a good chance she is not at peace with her decision to end the pregnancy and feels she could be swayed.

      One fact about abortion you may not know: Once the pregnancy is terminated, you can’t go back. It’s not like buying a car, and later deciding to return it. Women won’t experience something similar to buyer’s remorse. They normally bare guilt and deep regret, as well as grief.

  • invalid-0

    They aren’t as concerned with helping the woman reach a decision as they are in convincing her to go to term. At least one study (the Waxman study) has found “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” use misinformation about abortion to scare women. Example: telling women an abortion will increase their risk of breast cancer, or an abortion will cause sterility. So please don’t tell me it is about “informing” women as much as it is about idealogy. If it was, the CPCs would give women information about and access to birth control to prevent further unwanted pregnancies.

    • invalid-0

      I can’t sit here and vouch for every CPC in North America. far less, can I vouch for every worker in every CPC in North America. You can’t vouch for every abortionist, abortion clinic, or abortion counselor. This is all tit-for-tat.

      Furthermore, it is to be EXPECTED that pro-abortionists will call alarming information about abortion a “scare tactic.” Big tobacco used to call the link between cigarettes and lung cancer a “scare-tactic.” Studies have shown a link between abortion and depression, suicide, breast cancer, future incidence of pre-term birth and low-birth weight, future miscarriage…

      If it’s scary, you would call it a scare tactic.

      Ultrasound is not scary, so you’ve found another term for it.

  • invalid-0

    As a midwife, I can tell you that it is the RARE woman who receives only one ultrasound during the course of her pregnancy. Since it is billed out at about $250.00 a shot, most women will have three or more during the course of a “normal” pregnancy. It’s about the money folks!

  • invalid-0

    The pro-life, anti-choice stake in this matter is the sheer number of souls being born. There is no thought to what the rest of the newborn’s life might look like: education, medical care, enough food to eat or a home to live in, etc. The mother’s life seems to be much less valuable. And quality of life is not considered for either the fetus or the mother — just life, in whatever form, at whatever cost, is advocated. So the cost of an ultrasound seems to be the “going rate” for the saving of one potential soul…the cost to the mother’s life is not factored into the equation.

  • invalid-0

    These CPC’s are not interested in quality of life, they only wish to judge you harshly, if they cannot convince you to see things their way. That is playing God, to think Christ gave them the right to decide for another what is best for somebody else. Pro-lifers aren’t necessarily concerned over what that unwanted child will endure. I was borne to a woman who hated me. Had she aborted, it wouldn’t have been as cruel as being raised by someone who hated me! To think I could have been at HOME WITH GOD THE ALL LOVING instead, hmmm such misery to ponder. Hell on Earth or Heaven? Those that do change their mind are ending up in the DES offices on Welfare. But listen to those same pro-lifers opinions of those welfare Moms. It is a trap that few escape. But these are spoon fed, wealth church-going people who foolishly believe GOD is voting in OUR President. Ha! Abuse and neglect far more often occurs to these babies, because these Mothers are far too stressed, and perhaps were too young to know better how to cope. And what about those babies up for adoption by Mothers who felt it was the best option? Did they get a better deal? Are these the same people preaching abstinance only? Birth control availability would go far in this arena. Prevention first is far wiser but too simple to reliquish controll of what is easier to label as awful.

  • invalid-0

    No financial stake is what I said. Rewarding the woman’s choice over her body, I don’t have a problem with what she does with her body, but what about the baby’s body? If a pregnant woman in murdered and her baby dies, the perpetrator will most often be charged with two murders. It’s another person already.

    Breast cancer risk is increased with abortion. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/

    Complications from abortion can lead to sterility. So can a lot of other things. Should this information be withheld?

    Abortion defenders regard abortion to be a magic solution with no risks or repurcussions whatsoever. It’s not true. There are tremendous physical and emotional risks.

    Regarding consideration for the quality of life of the baby: Your contention is that we should engage in conjecture about what the baby’s life might look like and then decide arbitrarily whether the baby should be allowed a chance at having a life or not.

    Regarding the mothers life: Most PHMC’s have post-abortion counseling available for women who choose to abort. They are welcomed back into the centers whether they’ve chosen life or not. Mothers might have a tough time with an unexpected baby but they will be spared the pain of knowing that they willfully destroyed the life within them. There are emotional repurcussions whether that fits your ideaology or not.

    Regarding the person who penned that last comment, I’m very sorry for your pain. It’s apparent that your life has not been easy or pleasant. I would still have defended your opportunity to be born. It would have been so much better for you and for your mother if she’d given you the gift of allowing your adoption by a family in better circumstances.

  • invalid-0

    Quoting: “Regarding the mothers life: Most PHMC’s have post-abortion counseling available for women who choose to abort. They are welcomed back into the centers whether they’ve chosen life or not. Mothers might have a tough time with an unexpected baby but they will be spared the pain of knowing that they willfully destroyed the life within them. There are emotional repurcussions whether that fits your ideaology or not.”
    Anybody see the contradiction here? We welcome you back into our center even if you willfully destroyed the life within you.
    And I suppose you’re going to call it the “no-judgment zone”?
    No one in their right mind is going to claim that having a baby is easy. No one in their right mind is going to claim that raising a child is easy. But don’t try to pretend that the decision to terminate a pregnancy comes as easily as, say, getting a haircut or a new pair of shoes. Of course there are risks and repercussions, both emotional and medical, to abortion. I would venture to guess that most women who did choose to “willfully destroy the life within them” and feel that it was the right decision will agree that it was nevertheless a difficult one.
    As for the argument that “it’s all about the benjamins” for the “abortion industry”, don’t you think it would be much more lucrative to provide comprehensive prenatal care over the course of a woman’s pregnancy, and actually delivering the baby?
    Let’s compare it to taking your car to the mechanic. Which mechanic is going to make more money, the one who offers to crush your car for a one-time fee, or the one who offers to change the oil and perform all of the routine tune-ups for as long as you own the car?
    And while we’re on the topic of “benjamins”, what does the “life industry”, for want of a better term, offer to a woman who may want to keep her unborn child, but decides to abort because she lacks medical insurance and cannot afford the cost of quality prenatal care? How about lobbying for affordable universal health care so that the cost of bringing a baby to term is never again a factor in the decision to terminate a pregnancy?
    I love my two daughters. It’s the hypocrisy of the Right that I can’t stand.

  • invalid-0

    If there is no basis in logic for a womans right to abortion then there is no basis in the logic, law constitution, etc for her right to her own body when another persons life is at stake (not just a fetus). Medical advances have since the late 1800s when abortion laws were enacted have caught up to allow this to happen in other scenarios….its no less/more an ‘option’ too and I would have to support that right just as much as a fetus in order to have a consistent ethic around life (although I also believe in life exists prior to conception, which is another matter).

    Having a career outside the home wasn’t necessarily in all early feminist thought, yet feminism has evolved over the years to recognize women’s full humanity in all fronts.

  • harry834

    there these women:


    There's various responses after the abortion experience, good, bad, and in between. If you're calling her a murderer, aren't you, at least partly, responsible for her guilt?

  • harry834

    how does one distinguish between a medical and non-medical ultrasound?

  • http://www.frankdufay.com invalid-0

    “If a woman was not at an estimated higher than 50% risk of being coerced by a parent or partner into having an abortion, we could trust that she actually IS making the decision for herself.”
    . . . anecdotally: in high school, I knew someone who was feeling pressured to continue her pregnancy, while she herself wanted to abort.
    But, basically, you’re missing the underlying principle that they are only doing this “service” for potential abortions . . . why not offer the same service to people with other health issues – internal lesions; colon cancers; tumors; heart problems. If this is a legitimate medical program, think what good could be done by putting these same machines in homeless shelters, FEMA shelters, military barracks, etc? To catch problems early on would save many lives and dollars.
    “. . . if a woman refuses to look at a sonogram, there’s a good chance she is not at peace with her decision to end the pregnancy and feels she could be swayed.”
    . . . and why is that important?
    Lots of people might be swayed from: donating a kidney; undergoing surgery; getting a vaccine; calling a doctor. There are all sorts of things that sway our decision making process – consider the gut wrenching scenario of having to “pull the plug” on a loved one – of course no solution is 100% good.
    “Once the pregnancy is terminated, you can’t go back.”
    . . . same with having a child.
    My basic premise is that until (and perhaps beyond) we are able to transplant a fetus into a willing “carrier”, the decision lies with the woman (the one who has to adjust her life, and her body, for the sake of another being) – it’s a part of her body that she has the intrinsic right to domain.

    Which means reproductive education is the easiest, cheapest, and most moral way to suppress unnecessary surgery.

  • harry834

    My favorite line:

    "Once the pregnancy is terminated, you can't go back."

    . . . same with having a child."


    The next time I see pro-lifers with their women who regret abortion. I want to see women who regret NOT aborting. "I regret having children". We all know they exist, but of course we'll never see them at the picket line.

    "I regret my marriage" would be another reality that's covered by our polite society. But "I regret my abortion" seems just fine for dinner talk.

    If asked, "do you regret having children or being married?" how many women are going to answer honestly?

    That said, I do believe that marriage and children can work for those who choose it, rather than having it forced on them by people who believe "God" or someother excuse is on their side.

    A world of choice is where a woman can decide for herself to choose abortion or not, and she is not called a "murderer", "slut", "racist genocidalist" or "selfish" for doing this, either explicitly or implicitly. We must support her emotionally, medically, and financially no matter what her choice is, and we must not make the choice for her.

    While we're at it, lets make contraception and sex education available for all so we can dodge unintended pregnancies in the first place. It's a lot more humane and practical that forcing an entire society to celibacy before the questionable choice of marriage (which is good for some)

  • invalid-0

    Anon February 21, 2008 – 9:24pm, Is that another religious-group funded study done on 8 people by some pseudo-doctor? Abortion causes breast cancer! Abortion causes testicular cancer! Abortion causes suicidal ideation! Abortion causes crops to wilt, rivers to run red, and anyone with a D in their last name to drop dead! Please, you religious-right-wing zealots and your “studies” Show me the AMA entry where it says breast cancer is caused by abortion and I’ll listen. Ever heard the ‘ol saying “correlation doesn’t equal causation”?. And yes, most “crisis pregnancy centers” don’t offer referrals for abortion. They don’t even give out information on birth control. That’s because their only goal is to ideologically influence women. Watch “the last abortion clinic” by Frontline (btw, PBS is run by republicans, you can see it online). You’ll see in this fairly balanced documentary how these clinics operate. Basically, “our way (forced pregnancy) or get out you are full of sin”

    And no “abortion defenders” do not regard abortion as a “magic solution”, that is you and your ilk’s interpretation of something you do not fully understand. And you do not fully understand because you cannot put yourself in someone else’s shoes and walk in them (you are some of the most judgmental people I have ever met, “love the fetus, hate the child”. Abortion rights is about access to a safe MEDICAL procedure and not having to go to the back ally for a (I repeat) MEDICAL PROCEDURE. It’s about different things to different women, but for most it’s about a right to one’s own body and one’s own choice in health care.

    BTW, before women started demanding more rights, the church, for centuries, didn’t have an objection to abortion, people aborted back then with a variety of herbal medications, and for a variety of reasons, the church was allowed it up until the moment of quickening (roughly second trimester). Also not all religions believe that life starts at conception, Jewish religion says that life doesn’t start until the baby’s head is out. So what are all you extremists just going to outlaw religious freedom in this country too? You going to tell all Jewish people that their Halacha (law) is wrong and they can no longer follow what they have been following for thousands of years? (And no we are not a Christian nation so please don’t give me that)

  • invalid-0

    Presumably, a medical ultrasound is performed by or on behalf of a trained diagnostician who can actually use it to identify any issues with the pregnancy. And, oh by the way, as long as you’re there, sometimes they’ll tell you the sex of the baby if you ask.
    A non-medical ultrasound is when you’re a spoiled super-rich celebrity like Tom Cruise (uh-oh, he’s gonna sue me!) and you buy yourself an ultrasound machine to zap your pregnant wife with any time you feel like it, just because you can.
    Properly used, an ultrasound exam can a very useful diagnostic tool, in the same way that the judicious use of X-rays can be a very useful diagnostic tool. However, like X-rays, high frequency sound waves are a form of directed energy that can affect body tissues in the developing fetus.
    Now the yahoos that run these CPCs might say, what’s the difference, she’s going to abort the baby anyway. But if the intent is to save the life of the baby, it’s kind of ironic if they endanger or even injure the baby in the process.

  • harry834

    medically, you use ultrasounds when the woman wants the pregnancy. Makes sense.

    Using it when the woman does not want the pregnancy is a suspect use, yes no?

    Does my distinction spell it out? Or do any of the RH leaders want to stab at it.

    By the way, thank you anonymous

  • invalid-0

    You might want to try reading some John Locke. The entire concept of private property is based on the logic that what is indisputedly one’s own is one’s body. Privacy and property rights stem from Locke.

  • invalid-0

    Ultrasound has a medical purpose for a doctor who is providing services to a patient, whether in pregnancy care or abortion care.

    In abortion care, a doctor may use ultrasound to date the pregnancy, especially if the abortion will be by medication or the RU 486 pill regimen, which is only effective in the first two-thirds of the first trimester. A sonogram can also tell a doctor performing an abortion if there is an ectopic pregnancy, more than one fetus, a tumor, or other conditions that may affect the woman’s health.

    A doctor providing pre-natal care may use ultrasound, in addition, to determine the position of the fetus, check the placenta, examine for fetal abnormalities, and to evaluate other medical conditions or needs.

    Crisis pregnancy centers, or pregnancy care centers, do none of the above. They are evangelical organizations, attempting to use a medical device as a tool of persuasion for their cause. They actively describe ultrasound in this way. They see it as a way to persuade women to follow their beliefs.

    In the end, a nonmedical use for ultrasound is one that does not relate to a doctor’s provision of medical care.

  • invalid-0

    funny that you would care about a sonogram when you are talking about slaughtering a baby.

    why do you give two cents? WHY?? Oh I know! Because photographic evidence and a reminder of a baby does something to you, it shows you scientific evidence.
    something you pro-death people hate!

    makes you kind of queasy doesn’t it??
    22 weeks
    if you think that is ok, you are a fucking lunatic.