Crist Receives Mandatory Ultrasound Bill, Will Decide in 15 Days


Florida Governor Charlie Crist finally received the state legislature’s mandatory ultrasound bill. The bill, which requires all Florida women to pay out of pocket and undergo an ultrasound prior to having an abortion, was passed by the lawmakers over a month ago, but had been held by the Republican controlled legislature while they had anti-choice constituents place pressure on the governor, who was believed to be leaning towards a veto.

Tampa Bay Online reports:

The bill, House Bill 1143, requires women who want an abortion to get an ultrasound exam in the first trimester of their pregnancy. Women would have to view the ultrasound and receive an explanation on how fetuses develop.

Crist has 15 days — until June 22 — to take action on the bill, but last month, he hinted at a Tampa Tribune editorial board meeting that he might veto it.

“On two fronts it disturbs me,” Crist told the editorial board. “That you would force a woman to go through this procedure . . . almost seems mean-spirited. To have your government impose on you, listen to a lecture, then on top of that, you have to pay for it.”

Crist now has 15 days from the point of receiving the bill to either sign or veto it, and states “I’m going to use them.”

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

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • crowepps

    “On two fronts it disturbs me,” Crist told the editorial board. “That you would force a woman to go through this procedure . . . almost seems mean-spirited. To have your government impose on you, listen to a lecture, then on top of that, you have to pay for it.”

    There isn’t any almost about it – it IS mean-spirited.  Actually, it’s worse than that, it’s overt punishment for accessing a legal right done for no other purpose than to make the girl/woman feel as bad as possible while raising the cost in hopes of making it too expensive to access.

  • squirrely-girl

    “Have never understood the hypocrisy of people who advocate for limited gov’t on financial, business, and regulatory issues yet want the gov’t to control peoples’ private lives.”

  • paul-bradford

    …done for no other purpose than to make the girl/woman feel as bad as possible…


    I hope Crist vetoes the bill.  Making girls and women “feel bad” does nothing to increase a respect for life.  We will always have a problem when a woman’s internal desire to terminate a pregnancy is opposed by external pressure (legal, financial, physical, emotional) to bring the pregnancy to term.  The goal ought to be to reduce the pressure to terminate, not increase the pressure to bring to term.

  • crowepps

    I think if you investigate the people who want the government to control people’s private lives, there isn’t anything in THEIR private lives or those of the other people Just Like Them in which they want the government to interfere.  Instead, the government should be focusing on ‘them’, the poor, the godless, the gay, the promiscuous/pornographers, the brown, etc., etc., whose behavior is intolerable because it is Not Like Them.

     

    Of course, the poor, the godless, the gay, the brown, etc., want the government to so something about entitlement, freedom from religion, homophobia, sexism, racism , etc., but all of THOSE demands for government intervention are ipso facto an intolerable intrusion by government into their ‘rights’.

  • crowepps

    We will always have a problem when a woman’s internal desire to terminate a pregnancy is opposed by external pressure (legal, financial, physical, emotional) to bring the pregnancy to term.

    Doing something about those external pressures would disrupt the control the patriarchy wishes to have over women.

     

    Ignoring women’s internal desires as ‘disordered’ as well as the role played by all those external pressures reinforces the patriarchy and increases male control.

     

    “If women would just stop inappropriately wanting to be free like men and ‘accept their proper role’ as self-abnegating subordinates, there wouldn’t be any problem.  It’s only ‘unnatural’ women who don’t ‘celebrate their fertility’ and inappropriately divert their attention to education or careers or talents. “

     

    The primary interest isn’t ‘saving the unborn’, it is using the concept of the superior rights of the unborn to return women to the status of chattel.  Certainly there is never any instance in which the rights of the unborn are superior to MEN’s rights.  Just as a for instance, fathers don’t have to pay child support or medical bills.

     

    Women who don’t want to be pregnant are defective because ‘real women’ want to be mommies, those who want to limit the size of their families are defective and ‘hate kdis’, and nasty, defective people don’t deserve to have rights because there’s something wrong with them.

     

    This theme has replayed endlessly from the first time a woman wanted to speak up in public, though each and every instance in which women wrested control of another area of their life out of men’s hands, wages, property, education, career, choice of marital partner, ability to refuse sex, maternity care, anesthesia, and if we women seem to be a little hostile about pointing this out, it because so many men seem to be willfully BLIND to the historical realities and insist ‘while in that historical example those men were obviously wrong THIS issue is different because –‘.  In each and every instance all the way back the men trying to prevent women from controlling their own lives ALWAYS insisted that ‘this issue is different because –‘.

     

    We are far, far past the time when any woman with a brain in her head will fall for “Trust me to know what’s best for you”.

  • educated-rants
  • paul-bradford

    Doing something about those external pressures would disrupt the control the patriarchy wishes to have over women.


    crowepps,

     

    I was thinking, today, about the fact that even though I’m Pro-Life I oppose 99% of what other Pro-Lifers do as being ineffective or counter-productive.  Of course, in making that observation, I’m buying into the idea that the “others” actually ARE Pro-Lifers.  If these individuals are motivated, as you suggest, by a desire to promote the patriarchy’s control of women it might not matter to them that their policies do nothing to protect the unborn.  As long as their policies harass women, their policies actually are effective — effective in advancing their actual agenda.

     

    The bill on Gov. Crist’s desk is an example of an effort which, if successful, will do nothing to safeguard the very young or bring down the rate of abortion.  The thinking (if that’s what it can be called) behind the bill is that if a woman actually saw a picture of her unborn child she’d realize that s/he’s a bona fide person and would take her/his interests into account when making a decision about the pregnancy.  That’s pure bullshit.  I’ve been visiting this ‘site for nearly two years and I’m convinced that people here are among the most informed anywhere about the reality of pre-natal size, appearance and functionality.  This understanding and awareness doesn’t prevent the people on this ‘site from maintaining that ZBEF’s are not persons and needn’t be treated as persons should be treated.

     

    The other problem with this bill is that it fails to take into account the fact that the attitudes toward the unborn that a woman has on the day she learns she is pregnant will be the attitudes that will inform her decision to terminate or to bring to term.  To protect the unborn we must educate the public (an education, by way, that isn’t an education in science — it’s an education in justice)  and the people who need to be educated aren’t the 1% who are pregnant, they are the 99% who are not.

     

    Ignoring women’s internal desires as ‘disordered’ as well as the role played by all those external pressures reinforces the patriarchy and increases male control.

     


    You do realize, don’t you, that I don’t consider a woman’s desire to terminate a pregnancy as disordered. Generally speaking, these desires are rooted in a rational assessment of what impact pregnancy and childbirth would have on an individual woman’s life and whether that impact would have a positive or negative effect on her happiness. That’s hardly disordered!   It is, however, unfair to the child. The problem isn’t disorder, it’s injustice.

     

    Women seeking abortion aren’t alone in treating their unborn unfairly.  The entire society gives short shrift to the unborn.  Even people who very much want children betray the attitude that a ZBEF is a means to an end (the end being an adult’s desire to have children) rather than an end in her/himself.  When a fetus dies (for example, due to a spontaneous abortion) the reaction from others is shaped by the mother’s (and family’s) desires.  We’re far more likely to mourn the loss of a woman’s hopes than we are to mourn the loss of fetal life.  People actually express relief rather than grief when a woman who doesn’t want a child miscarries.  We all respect the hopes of the mother, but we don’t all respect the life of the child.

     

    People everywhere make decisions that are good for them and bad for others.  Pregnant women are far from being the worst offenders.  Whenever any of us makes a decision that helps us but harms the other people who are affected, we’re misusing our authority.  The fact that some people pile up capital assets while other people starve is proof that authority is misused.  Pointing fingers does very little to alleviate economic injustice — why should we think that pointing fingers will bring justice to the unborn.  A more comprehensive plan is needed. 

     

    I’m not going to join the Symbionese Liberation Army, rob banks and distribute the proceeds to the poor.  That’s a direct, but hopelessly inept and destructive, way to help the helpless.  Strategies to harass pregnant women have a lot in common with SLA strategies — and they’re no way to help the helpless.

  • paul-bradford

    We cherish contrary aims.  Some people want the society to get other people to behave, some others simply want the society to leave them alone.  It’s not just about government.  Watch the non-governmental ways we have of getting each other to behave or getting others to leave us alone.

     

    Some people (liberals and conservatives are two examples) are selective about which issues are the ones where they want other people to behave and which are the ones where they want people to leave them alone; other people tend one way or the other.  Some people are willing to endure the intrusion of other people’s intervention as a trade-off for getting everyone else to behave, other people are willing to endure other people’s bad behavior as a trade-off for being left alone.

  • crowepps

    Women seeking abortion aren’t alone in treating their unborn unfairly. The entire society gives short shrift to the unborn.

    Actually, the entire society gives short shrift to the BORN child as well. Inadequate and unsafe daycare staffed by minimum wage workers, superficial education staffed by teachers from the lower end of the SATs who received degrees in education that don’t enable them to teach, refusing children medical care, harassing parents who need to take time off when children are ill – our society makes it very clear that children are NOT our ‘most precious asset’ but instead a huge inconvience that gets in the way of people making and spending money.

     

    Certainly the recent decision of our Alaska governor to forego $2 million in federal funds and leave one thousand children without medical insurance and many pregnant women without prenatal care in order to prevent a few women from getting medically necessary abortions underlines the fact that to some, the purpose of ‘children’ is to use an indictor of whether women are having illicit sex and/or to prevent women from aspiring to equal status with men, and beyond that, they couldn’t care less.

     

    Happened to run across this comment to an article:

    In Catholic ethics, there are two important principles to remember.

     

    *Since the Church is the Body of Christ, the woman’s body is analoguous to a Church body and is therefore subject to ecclesiastical male government. (cf 1 Cor 11 : 3-16)

     

    *The baby or foetus is considerably more important than the woman because it is weaker. Paul says that ”he who is weakest is strongest” (cf 2 Cor 12 : 10).

    Would be interested in your comment.

  • crowepps

    I was thinking, today, about the fact that even though I’m Pro-Life I oppose 99% of what other Pro-Lifers do as being ineffective or counter-productive.  Of course, in making that observation, I’m buying into the idea that the “others” actually ARE Pro-Lifers.  If these individuals are motivated, as you suggest, by a desire to promote the patriarchy’s control of women it might not matter to them that their policies do nothing to protect the unborn.  As long as their policies harass women, their policies actually are effective — effective in advancing their actual agenda.

    Consider just how likely it is that someone would spend 20 years doing exactly the same ineffective things that do not advance their STATED goal if those things weren’t actually effective in advancing their UNSTATED goal.

     

    Then, of course, there’s the fact that the ‘leaders’ of the movement can use the sentimentality and sexism of their followers to elicite donations that enable them to build $480,000 houses.  If you think their policies of harassing women are wrong because they aren’t effective, consider for a moment just how vile it is that they are encouraging and channeling hostility towards women because it’s PROFITABLE.

     

    Fred Phelps and his familiy, just as a for instance, aren’t in the ‘protest against gays’, harass the parents of dead servicemen at funerals movement for any other reason than because HE MAKES MONEY FROM IT.

  • ahunt

    Stunned crowepps…please tell me where you found those responses!

     

    The baby or foetus is considerably more important than the woman because it is weaker. Paul says that ”he who is weakest is strongest”

     

    So the xtian hierarchical order of importance is BZEF, infant, toddler, child, teenager, woman and LAST…man?

  • paul-bradford

    Would be interested in your comment.

     

    crowepps,

     

    I would really like to get a link to those comments.  Please tell me who wrote them.  From the little bit you shared I’m thinking that it’s not the best way to teach Church doctrine.

     

    My comments?  Well, it is useful to meditate on the thought that we (you can think of ‘we’ as the Church or as humankind) are Christ’s beloved.  His bride, if you will.  That’s ALL of us — male and female.  The metaphor emphasizes the intensity of God’s love for us, not an assignment of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’.  Jesus cares for us as truly as a loving spouse cares for her/his spouse — and we are called to reciprocate.  We reciprocate by loving each other with the same intensity as he loves us.  By ‘love’, I’m talking about disinterested love — the love we’re talking about when we say, “Love your neighbor”.

     

    Did you read my essay, “What God Has Joined Together”? I hope you will. I point out there, as I do on numerous occasions, that many spiritual teachings are misinterpreted by those who overemphasize the distinction between ‘male’ and ‘female’.  I think it is utterly absurd to distort Paul’s teaching in Corinthians to justify the subjugation of women or the promotion of an all male ecclesiastical government.  Both men and women are called to turn away from a life of mere self-interest and to follow Jesus’ example in making the happiness of others as important to us as our own happiness.

     

    The other comment about “he who is weakest is strongest” has merit.  When I have more time I will elaborate on what is called in Catholic social justice teaching “A preferential option for the poor”.  What it boils down to is this — we should put a greater emphasis on helping those who most need our help.

  • crowepps

    The comment was made under an article by the typical commentor using a screen name and in my personal opinion, one without theological training who had self-appointed himself as an expert on Catholic doctrine.  Certainly the theological train of thought seemed to be having a lot of trouble getting up the hill.  That’s why I asked you about it.  Thanks for your take on it.

     

    I agree that focusing on ‘control’, whether by Church heirarchy or by anybody else who feels their superiority entitles them to force others to do things their way, is actually a turning away from Christian love.  No matter how exasperated Christ was by His disciples, I cannot remember any instance in which he tried to CONTROL them instead of convincing them.

  • amyc

    I just want there to be an adequate safety net for the disenfranchised (poor people, sick people, disabled people, minorities etc…), regulations to keep businesses honest (look at what 20 some-odd years of deregulation got us), and laws to uphold the peace. I don’t need anyone telling me who I can/cannot marry, when I should have a child, or what drugs I should use (except my doctor; I mean come on nicotine kills thousands of people a year and it’s legal, marijuana has never killed anyone).