79°
forecast

Va. Senate panel OKs requiring ultrasound before abortion

Posted to: News Politics State Government Virginia

By Michael Sluss

RICHMOND

A Senate committee that was overhauled after last year’s election advanced legislation this morning that would require pregnant women to undergo ultrasound imaging before having an abortion, a breakthrough for abortion opponents who have supported the requirement for years.

On a party-line vote of 8-7, the Republican-controlled Senate Education and Health Committee endorsed the legislation and sent it to the full Senate. An identical bill is pending in the House of Delegates, which has passed similar bills in previous years only to have them killed by a Democratic-controlled Senate committee. Republicans gained a majority on the committee after taking organizational control of the Senate earlier this month.

Senate Bill 484 would require a pregnant woman to undergo ultrasound imaging to determine the gestation age of the fetus and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image before having an abortion. Supporters of the bill said the ultrasound requirement merely expands the state’s existing “informed consent” law for abortion procedures. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Jill Vogel, R-Fauquier County, and incorporates an identical measure sponsored by Sen. Ralph Smith, R-Roanoke County.

Opponents said the bill would subject women to an unnecessary and intrusive procedure and pose another barrier to having an abortion procedure.

“The intent of this bill – hell, it’s so damn obvious Ray Charles can see through this,” said Senate Minority Leader Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax County, the senior Democrat on the panel.

This could be the second consecutive legislation session in which abortion opponents gain a major victory. Last year, the General Assembly passed legislation requiring the state to regulate abortion clinics like hospitals. Gov. Bob McDonnell’s administration has approved emergency regulations and the state Board of Health will hold a public hearing Friday in Richmond on permanent clinic regulations.

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

We're Going Backwards

Backwards thinking such as this will not curtail abortion, It will, however, force women to seek abortion clinics and find themselves in the hands of the likes of Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia. Those women were left barren, infected, and some died.

While I am the first to say abortion should not be used as a method of birth control, it should be available in cases of rape, incest, and medical problems involving the fetus or the mother. These women should not be forced to bare more pain than they already are.

Ultrasound test prior to abortion

You're truly going beyond the law; a woman's body is her own and lets
not forget it takes two (unless we do artificial means); also
recently a birth control pill was pulled off the market because it said it didn't work...face reality lawmakers; each of us are personally responsible to GOD for our choices in what we do with our bodies (exempting..rape..etc)..you have more laws on the books than God
and everytime you make one, means more will be broken..So think before
you pass these type of laws.

what are they doing to help...

Every time I hear someone rant and rail against abortions I ask them how many adopted children does their congregation have. Amazingly the answer is always the same. NONE!!!!!
These are the same folks who think there’s nothing improper about men’s health insurance plans providing Viagra or Calais but have a fit when women ask their insurance providers for birth control pills.
I remember many years ago that prophylactic packages stated “Sold for prevention of disease only”. It would call for the question why would married men need such a product unless they were less than fully faithful.
Ladies, if your spouse supports this line of thinking i suggest you require they get a health card and 100% pre-sex check up.

So, hypothetically...

If I were to seek an abortion, you're going to force me to have an ultrasound that I might not want? And, of course, you're going to charge me for this ultrasound that I might not have wanted? Would you force me, then, to look at it as well? This is outrageous.

you force me, then, to look at it as well?

Nope. The bill says you will be given the option.

I've said it once.......

Science flies people to the moon, Religion flies people into buildings.

I think I'm beginning to

I think I'm beginning to agree with you.

UGH!

*beats head repeatedly against desk* Stupid Tea Party Repubs.

More proof that the small

More proof that the small government trope put forth by the right is pure hypocrisy. It isn't a philosphy at all. It is a slogan.

More Moral Hypocracy

Same Old Story from the Republicans and Social Conservatives. The "Right to Lifers" are all for preventing a poor woman from aborting an unplanned, unwanted, and unaffordable pregnancy. However, the instant the baby is born, they are equally determined to deny it and the mother any public assistance whatsoever. If "life" is so precious to these folks, why don't they adopt a few of these babies they have saved? I think y'all know the answer to that one......

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: News rss feed    Politics rss feed    State Government rss feed   


Toolbox


Partners