WSJ - Question of the day

Should states require sonograms before allowing women to have abortions?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is expected to sign a law soon requiring a woman seeking an abortion to have a sonogram and hear a description of the fetus, including whether it has developed fingers, toes or internal organs, as well as requiring a 24-hour waiting period before most procedures. In the past decade, more than 20 states have passed laws involving sonograms for women seeking abortions. Most simply require that ultrasounds be performed. But the Texas and Oklahoma laws, as well as legislation under consideration in Alabama, go further by requiring a woman who wants an abortion to be told in detail about her fetus's development.

What do you think? Do such laws interfere with a woman's privacy? Do they needlessly raise health care costs? Or are they a way to preserve life and improve health?


Yes! I think it's a great idea. We spend hours researching other elective surgeries. I would think women would want to be informed before having an abortion.

No. It's none of the state's or the federal government's business. The decision a woman makes with her doctor are no one else's business.

You don't like abortions? Don't have one.

Will the Taxpayers pay for this? Will they also pay for ultrasounds for women who plan to carry? This sounds like another case of the government being intrusive into personal decisions. No. No nanny state needed.

Trouble wrote: Yes! I think it's a great idea. We spend hours researching other elective surgeries. I would think women would want to be informed before having an abortion.

Yes, some do spend hours researching other elective surgeries.....and some don't. It's a choice, fancy that. What ever happened to conservative's belief in personal responsibility and not having the government tell us how to run our lives.....who would have thought conservatives would be arguing FOR a nanny state.

Interesting thread Trouble. I can see this from both sides. I do think that it would encourage some women to reconsider getting an abortion if they saw this tiny human being and could hear its heat beat. I'm not for government stepping in and having its hand in anything to do with this subject BUT I can see its value. The funding (as Archer points out) becomes a huge expense for taxpayers to be liable for which I don't think is fair. Chickaree also brings up an excellent point of making it a matter of fairness that women who want to keep their baby should get a free ultrasound too. I guess in the end I would have to say no way.

Different strokes for different folks. India is discouraging pregnant women from finding out the sex of their child because they notice most of the abortions are female.

I am also against government intrusion into this decision. I would support other measures that would encourage the use of birth control. Many women get abortions because they feel they can't take care of a child, financially or otherwise. If there was some kind of support system that helped out, maybe this would also limit abortions. Oh - wait - then they would be called welfare queens.

But as women we LOVE to be informed. Why is an informed decision so threatening?

WE get to decide when we want to be "informed" with someone else's propaganda. Last I heard, your right to "inform" me stops at my right not to listen.

Propaganda? That's a stretch. It's just an opportunity to present the facts. Could it prevent regret later on?