Texas Passes Bill to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

Texas Passes Bill to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: May 5, 2011

HOUSTON — In a victory for anti-abortion advocates, Texas will join the ranks of states that require doctors to perform a sonogram before conducting an abortion.

Gov. Rick Perry, a conservative Republican, made the bill, which the Legislature passed on Thursday, a priority and is expected to sign it. The bill requires a doctor to conduct a sonogram at least 24 hours before an abortion and to give the woman the opportunity to see the results and hear the heartbeat of the fetus. Though the woman can choose not to view the images and hear the heartbeat, the doctor must describe what the sonogram shows, including the existence of legs, arms and internal organs.

“This will be one of the strongest pieces of sonogram legislation in the nation,” the bill’s author, Representative Sid Miller, a Republican from Stephenville, told reporters. Mr. Miller predicted the measure would “save numerous unborn lives.”

Because the measures passed both houses of the Legislature with a two-thirds majority, it will go into effect as soon as the governor signs it.

At least three other states have similar laws, and Oklahoma passed a bill last year requiring a doctor to provide a detailed oral description of the embryo, but a court has temporarily stayed that measure pending a lawsuit. Opponents say the bill is designed to dissuade women from seeking abortions, and they argue that the state should not interfere with the relationship between a doctor and patient.

femme fatale wrote:... Just a waste of insurance money.

Forgiveness Man wrote:Kind of like the entire so-called Pro-Choice movement! lol

God forbid the mother have to have a sonogram before getting her kid ripped out of her. Nobody gives a hoot about the cost of this. We mandate crap in all fields from food to medicine and nobody whines about costs. This is about the chance that it might convince a woman to NOT have an abortion. There'd be NO other reason to get upset.

RedBedroom wrote:I do.

Have you seen many sonogram videos or still images? They are not all that clear usually, so if women go into it already feeling detached, a sonogram isn't going to change a lot of minds. Granted, there will be women it does affect and compels them to change their minds. But is the cost of all forced sonograms worth it? To you, probably. To me, no.

Plus, what kind of clinics do women go to when they want an abortion? They look it up in a phone book or online and see what clinics in their area offer abortions. So, we have pro choice doctors and pro choice ultrasound techs giving these sonograms. Do you really think that they are going to take a lot of time to show the baby's features and try to promote carrying to full term in that moment? They will just go through the motions because if they felt passionate about the pro life stance as you do, they probably wouldn't offer abortions in the first place.


You must live in a very tolerant area to think that people don't whine about costs associated with things that are mandated in all fields from food to medicine. Because that is not a reality where I live.

RedBedroom wrote:

I do.

Have you seen many sonogram videos or still images? They are not all that clear usually, so if women go into it already feeling detached, a sonogram isn't going to change a lot of minds. Granted, there will be women it does affect and compels them to change their minds. But is the cost of all forced sonograms worth it? To you, probably. To me, no.

Plus, what kind of clinics do women go to when they want an abortion? They look it up in a phone book or online and see what clinics in their area offer abortions. So, we have pro choice doctors and pro choice ultrasound techs giving these sonograms. Do you really think that they are going to take a lot of time to show the baby's features and try to promote carrying to full term in that moment? They will just go through the motions because if they felt passionate about the pro life stance as you do, they probably wouldn't offer abortions in the first place.


You must live in a very tolerant area to think that people don't whine about costs associated with things that are mandated in all fields from food to medicine. Because that is not a reality where I live.

CeCe wrote:As for the people who don't mind those extra costs, there should be a special volunteer tax set up for them to be deducted from their paycheck. Of course they should also shoulder the financial burden of raising this child too so they might want to put in for overtime.

RedBedroom wrote:The problem is that insurance will cover a prenatal sonogram. So, it will be a largely ineffective mandate that will cost you and me indirectly because of insurance rates.

Trust me, people, such as me, complaining about this from a financial aspect are legit. We buy our health insurance privately, and it is insane how much it has gone up and just keeps doing so.

RedBedroom wrote:I fully understand that we have mandates all the time that can affect insurance rates. The topic of mandated ultrasounds just happens to be the one we are talking about right now. I could go on for quite a while about all the things I have read about since I started buying private health insurance that have made me outraged, but that would be a bore for both of us.

Jason B. wrote:So a 14 year old rape victim can't abort her attackers child now w/o being made to have a sonogram of it, and probably preached to about how "wrong" her choice is. This is emotional blackmail and legalized harassment.

Rainmaker wrote:I feel like this is manipulating the mother's emotions. Women do not search for eggs lost following the luteal phase of their menstrual cycles, so why make them do this?