iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Michele Bachmann Proposes Mandatory Ultrasounds For Women Seeking Abortions

First Posted: 10/07/2011 4:07 pm Updated: 12/07/2011 4:12 am

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) proposed a bill on Thursday that would force women in the early stages of pregnancy to have a physically invasive and medically unnecessary ultrasound procedure before they can legally consent to having an abortion.

The "Heartbeat Informed Consent Act" requires doctors to make the fetal heartbeat visible and audible to the woman prior to the abortion procedure and to describe the ultrasound image to her in detail, even if she prefers not to hear about it. If the woman is between four and five weeks pregnant, the doctor has to perform a "transvaginal ultrasound" in order to hear the heartbeat, which involves a probe and can be physically uncomfortable for the woman.

"It's similar to a pelvic exam, which can come with discomfort for the woman, and it's invasive," said Dr. Nancy Stanwood, an obstetrician and board member of the health advocacy group Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. "It's also medically unnecessary. Some politicians might see it as ideologically necessary, but it's medically unnecessary, so the government telling you that you need to have one sounds ridiculous on many levels."

Bachmann says the bill is intended to coax women who are considering getting abortions into changing their minds and carrying their pregnancies to term.

“A study by Focus on the Family found that when women who were undecided about having an abortion were shown an ultrasound image of the baby, 78% chose life," she said in a statement.

But Dr. Stanwood, who performs multiple abortions a week, said that in her experience, performing an ultrasound on a pregnant woman who has already decided to have an abortion never actually changes the woman's mind.

"I've been in practice for 16 years and I've never met a woman who didn't understand what pregnancy meant," she told HuffPost. "Women are completely aware that their embryos can develop into babies. They know what it takes to be a good mother and they know when they're ready. Showing a woman the heartbeat doesn't change the situation that caused her to choose abortion in the first place."

Bachmann's ultrasound bill will likely earn the support of the strong pro-life contingency in the Republican-controlled House, but it has little to no chance of passing in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.

Even if the Senate were to support Bachmann's legislation, it would likely be struck down in federal court. A federal judge recently blocked certain parts of a mandatory ultrasound bill in Texas that state lawmakers passed in the spring, ruling that doctors cannot be penalized for refusing to describe a sonogram to a pregnant woman who doesn't want to hear it.

"The Act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen," Judge Sam Sparks told the court.

Regardless of whether or not her legislation is feasible or likely to be passed, Bachmann seems intent upon reminding voters of her commitment to ending abortions.

"In the midst of the number one issue, which is jobs and the economy, we don't want to forget the issue of life," Bachmann said at a media event in Iowa on Tuesday. "Because you can get a lot of things wrong, but you can't get life wrong."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10,584
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (234 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
davesocal818
05:33 AM on 11/25/2011
Don't be surprised if you see Michele Bachmann apply for disaster relief funding...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KMoore4318
Sarcasm/Satire; Google it !!!
09:57 PM on 10/28/2011
Mandating an end to abortion will not make people good, anymore than mandating all give to world hunger, would make them charitable. Even God believed in choice, and free will, did he not place the tree of life, and the three if good and evil, right in the middle of the garden, Had god wanted robots, he would have simply eliminated choice. To believe that people should have choice, in no way detracts from the belief that some will make the wrong choice, Just as believing in free speech, does not mean that you have to believe everything someone says. Yes, you can believe that abortion is wrong, and still believe people have a right to choose, just as people have the right to choose hell over heaven, the right to decide to deny them both, or the right to choose greed over compassion. One day choice will be taken, I suspect eventually we will have the DNA knowledge to simply turnoff reproduction at birth, and have panels to decide eligibility and ability to raise a child, as well as determine a person has the financially ability to do it. The argument for pro choice will have a new meaning. But at least population will be controlled, and hopefully there will be no more abortion, or unwanted children.
photo
MyAhaMoment
Mississippi Liberal: a rare breed, indeed!
11:18 AM on 10/13/2011
Ohhhh. We can't MANDATE purchasing health insurance, but we can MANDATE forcing women to have a VERY invasive vaginal ultrasound that that INSURANCE won't pay for.

(sorry I'm late to the party)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KadejaLatefah
That's right...I said it!
10:43 PM on 10/24/2011
ditto
11:28 PM on 10/11/2011
In referince we speak only anaogously.
11:27 PM on 10/11/2011
To the one who aske me what an analogy is did she mean of proportion or attribution or metaphorical.
Is she talking univocally,equivically,or by way of analogy.
There are 3 types of analogy.
In analogy similar things differ and different things have similarities
In reference we speak only analogously.
It's too bad I wiped out tthe reply
04:27 PM on 10/11/2011
3
No one would say that a newly existing being has no identity or it cannot be known without contradicting oneself.This being exists of itself and in a certain way.It requires the basics of life just as we do and in accord with our natures.Take away from you what is necessary for continuing existence you die.Remove this new being from it natural home and take away it's necessary means to continue in existence it dies.
So the newly conceived being which one calls a zygote is a person.As a person it has within the single cell from which it begins, and gives rise to every other cell and its determination as this or that, and because no human nature can exist without a subject that possesses this nature,called a person,it necessarily is such whether one is comprehending this or has been spoon fed from infancy beginning in 1972 these false notions.
04:03 PM on 10/11/2011
2
This being has a human nature which means that it operates and acts according to certain laws and principles.From its very beginning it is determined to be what it is with its life,existence as a human being,a totally new entity with a human nature.
The terms zygote,embryo,fetus are generic terms referring only to size or amount of matter and nothing ever is defined by quantity.The definition of a thing is never taken from size or quantity.
Only things with an identity can ever undergo change,size only being one of numerous possibilities.There must necessarily be a subject of change for a thing change at all.In other words there is already an identifiable existing subject.Otherwise the thing,if no identity,would always be changing into something else with no identity possible.
Now there is no such thing as a human life,human nature,or human existence that is not a person.This is the subject of the human life,existence,change and motion,growth and nature.
There is no such as "becoming" a person,or anything that immediately has a new existence.
It either is or it isn't.
03:36 PM on 10/11/2011
1
The right to privacy is like all rights,limited.If one has the absolute right to abortion one would think the SC would be clever enough to prove their point on its own merits or demerits.This decision with respect to abortion does not even fall within their field of expetise and their decision was predicated on the notion everyone was as stupid as they were, and are.Apparently they don't know when human life begin and so no one else does.If it is an absolute right then it needs no privacy argument to make its point since apparently it is found in the Constitution.
The fertilized ovum is obviously alive because on its own it begins to divide and divide and utilizes food and oxygen from the Mother.She can only be referred to as Mother if there is a "person"within her womb.

The fertilized egg or zygote is obviously alive and human since its parents are human and because "like generates like".Generation meaning that one brings into existence something exactly like themselves.So we at least have an existing human life or human being.It is a totally new enitity as every rational biologist knows.It is a newly existing being. Zygote does not identify what it is.The dynamics of this being or thing is explosive.
photo
MyAhaMoment
Mississippi Liberal: a rare breed, indeed!
11:25 AM on 10/13/2011
First, the Constitution is not an all inclusive document.
Second, you contradict yourself, if the zygote is "on its own" then it wouldn't need the nutrients carried by the blood of the mother to help it grow"
Third, a woman is not called a mothe until a child is born from her. Until then she is pregnant and possibly categorized as a mother to be.
Fourth, the right being fought over, is the right to choose whether to continue to grow a child inside you, not the right to abort it in and of itself.
Fifth, with the right to choose, you can choose not to have an abortion, but since, by your name you appear to be a man, you will NEVER have to make that choice, so it's very easy to be against something you yourself can never experience, or even be responsible for.
04:55 PM on 10/13/2011
It's all inclusive for this country.
You are on your own probably less so than the fertilized ovum.
If you want to quibble over Mother so be it.Just as long as those who are pro-abortion don't consider themselves Mother's.
It's not a child inside you since it is not a child.The right is to abort and that is the way it is worded.Don't downplay the issue because if she doesn't decide to carry it to term then she will abort it.
It is very easy for me to choose right from wrong and the person committing the wrong in abortion is apparently free to do it under out laws.One is never free to do evil and could never be done except under the appearance of an apparent good
11:03 PM on 10/10/2011
this of course fits right in there with the gop "less government intrusion" philosophy.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
YupIndeed
We are all made of star stuff.
03:13 PM on 10/10/2011
here's a question: how do the docs feel about being forced to perform an unnecessary procedure? I'm all about people staying out of a woman's uterus but let's also check with the other person in the room having to be forced into conducting such a procedure? The doctor has gone through YEARS of medical school and certainly knows better than politicians what is medically sound or not. If Medicaid gets slashed, then the docs and hospitals don't get paid as much. As such, less money will be made and jobs will have to be cut because there isn't as much income coming in to support the practice and/or hospital.
photo
grayplace
Life's a dream within a dream.
02:01 PM on 10/10/2011
Isn't it amazing how these right wing candidates spout off about reducing government size and "interference" and yet still maintain that it must be involved in our private lives to the fullest?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
saltpeter
Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of fiscal ideology
01:54 PM on 10/10/2011
And I propose mandatory lie detector tests and CAT Scans to determine the functionality of their brain for people who want to be President of the United States
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TarzanaGirl
01:47 PM on 10/10/2011
Oh the IRONY....if only Bachmann's own mother had had an ultrasound?
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
07:01 PM on 10/10/2011
With sharp eyes, she could surely have seen the dire problems with cranial development that were on the way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dvncmdy
I'm being followed by a moon shadow
12:44 PM on 10/10/2011
I propose manditory brainscans for anyone wanting to hold public office
12:26 PM on 10/10/2011
I think it should be mandatory for all teenagers aged 16 years and older to take a course called "Life Management Skills" or "Family Living". If every teenager took a life mangement skills course, we probably would not need abortion services performed at Planned Parenthood or maybe not even have Planned Parenthood at all, just a Public Health department. Some schools offer life management skills courses on line so the students can learn by computer instead of in a classroom setting.
01:28 PM on 10/10/2011
What would they teach at "Life Management Skills" class for 16 year old girls that would make it unnecessary to have a Planned Parenthood? Most of what they do there is stuff like pelvic exams, birth control prescriptions and reproductive health education.

Public health department clinics do offer the same services but not every department of public health has a clinic. Some counties have mobile clinics that do HIV & pregnancy testing as well as prescribe BCP and hand out condoms; but they don't do pelvic exams/ pap smears.
02:39 PM on 10/10/2011
The Planned parenthood clinic in my city is open Mon - Thursday 9 am - 8 pm, Fri 10 am - 5 pm and Saturday 10 am - 4 pm.

The county health department clinic is open Thursday 8:30 - 5.
04:20 PM on 10/10/2011
I think it should be the other way around. The county health department clinic should cover a whole wide variety of health issues for people of all ages. If it was mandatory for all young teenagers to complete the 'Life Mangement Skills" class, the Planned Parenthood could probably become eliminated or useless.