Cool. I gather the pro-life movement will be paying the cost of this for women who lack insurance and cannot afford to pay for it on their own?

If the woman isn’t REQUIRED to view the untra-sound, I have no problem with it being offered as an option. I agree with you on that, Steven.

Lawmakers in the state of Oklahoma passed SB1878 last year which requires doctors to perform an ultrasound prior to an abortion. Among other things, the bill requires that at least one hour prior to an abortion, an abortionist perform an ultrasound and display the image of the unborn child so that the mother can view it if she chooses, and also must verbally describes the fetus’ characteristics during the ultrasound. One might assume this is because lawmakers in Oklahoma care so deeply about our chldren. Statistics on child welfare in our state prove otherwise, with the number of children who are “food unstable” are on the rise, our juvenile incarceration rates top those of the country, our homeless population of children reported by school districts is rising, the number of children with no healtcare is shameful. When proposing this legislation, lawmakers said that pregnant patients could simply “avert their eyes” if they did not want to see the ultrasound. From an Oklahoma child’s point of view, our lawmakers have already “averted their eyes”. If lawmakers in Oklahoma care so much about our children, prove it with those who are already born. This Oklahoma law is not about caring for children, it is about governing women’s reproduction.

The Oklahoma situation is an example of the typical conservative, pro-life approach to abortion. They want a legislative fix that costs them no money. As has been cited on this blog NUMEROUS times, when money is invested in social spending (i.e., welfare, food programs, healthcare for those lacking insurance, etc.) the instance of abortions decreases.
But conservative pro-lifers, who value money more than children, don’t want to spend money to reduce abortions. They merely want to enact laws. Thus we get meaningless drivel like the Oklahoma ultrasound act.
Maybe the next time the Oklahoma legislature decides to cut social spending, they should be forced to watch video of the children they are threatening before they vote.

I’d say Oklahoma has gone a long way to far….that is an outrageous requirement. As an above post says, take care of the children already here.

“But conservative pro-lifers, who value money more than children, don’t want to spend money to reduce abortions. They merely want to enact laws. Thus we get meaningless drivel like the Oklahoma ultrasound act.”
We didn’t require liberals or so-called “progressives” to spend money to stop racial segragation or to pass domestic violence laws to punish wife beaters, we passed a law that simply says you can’t do this anymore because those you feel are inferior to you are equal to you.
It is that simple. It isn’t about money or rights, but human equality. What the ultrasound does is reveal the humanity of the human-in-the-womb. Money plays no part in it. You don’t kill another human because you either have or lack money. You leave them alone. All that is being asked is to leave the human-in-the-womb alone and not to assault them. This is hardly “radical” or “maniacal” or any other adjective the pro-abortionists(the correct term for them) will come up with.
Also, where did the idea that Conservatives don’t care about children. We think it is the responsibility of the parents to do this, whether the children were fully “planned” or “wanted” or not. It is not the responsibility of Govt. to care for them but TO FORCE the parents to do so. Just as Govt. FORCES equal treatment and protection against assault regardless if the victim is WANTED.
Why is this hard to understand?

“It is not the responsibility of Govt. to care for them but TO FORCE the parents to do so.” brison
Guess the number of children killed/abused by their parents is proof that the government can FORCE those parents to take care of unwanted/unplanned children, right brison? Just last night, there were 2 different cases of mothers who killed (1) a newborn at birth and (2) an 18 month old. Why did they have those children to begin with?? An abortion should have been their call, as it is obvious they didn’t love or nurture them…they killed them on purpose, not an accident. The pregnancy was probably an accident…
No, abortions should always be available to women who want them…as the innocent baby pays the price by being killed AFTER they are born….as shown above and in many, many other cases daily. The requirement to view an ultrasound doesn’t mean that if the woman changes her mind due to viewing it that the child will survive AFTER it is out of the womb. Government CAN”T force any woman to take care of and raise a child. Why is that so hard to understand?????

I’m a believer in having all the information, or at least having the option of getting it. I think ultrasounds should be at least offered to all women seeking abortions – not necessarily because it will save babies, although I think that’s positive in many cases, but because I think women can avoid a lot of suffering if they have as much information as possible BEFORE they get the abortion. Then they know whether they can deal with it, and whether it’s worth it or not.

I can see most of you are young – you do not remember when people waited to have sex until they got married, and did not delay having children until they were 95. I believe the abuse rates and illegitmacy rates (I know) have skyrocketed because of the sexual revolution. The minority family is almost entirely gone, and the blue colar white family is following suit. I agree that kids need things like job programs (teaching them a trade like Help Desk or Network Admin or Sports therapist) as well as teaching them the meaning of commitment and respecting humanity. Some of my grandparents came out of real poverty (and their parents) but they did not abuse their children – I believe some of this is the permissiveness of society. I will tell you that my parents’ liveins (and my parents are well off) have caused me more trouble than the poverty of their parents and grandparents. I think we have no moral culpability anymore, and helping out is only part of the problem. When the world says “What benefits me and screw you, the me eventually becomes the you.