"Because in Cyberspace, no one can hear you scream."
Sunday, April 17, 2005
[Media Source*] (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)
SPRINGFIELD -- Pro-abortion forces won a victory in the Illinois House Wednesday as State Rep. Rosemary Mulligan (R-Park Ridge) successfully passed HB 2492 which would make it a criminal offense for an ultrasound to be administered without a doctor's order...[Rosemary] Mulligan said that the Federal Drug Administration had warned that muscle and nerve development could be affected by long exposure.
It seems silly that a two minuet ultra sound can be that "dangerous" to a fetus/baby (depending on your view of life) that laws would need to be created to govern it's use. Although this seems more of a political measure than a medical one (as Junk Yard Blog reasons) lets give the opposition the benefit of the doubt and actually see what the FDA had to say about using ultra sound technology.
Ultrasonic fetal scanning, from a medical standpoint, generally is considered safe if properly used when information is needed about a pregnancy. Still, ultrasound is a form of energy, and even at low levels, laboratory studies have shown it can produce physical effects in tissue, such as jarring vibrations and a rise in temperature. Although there is no evidence that these physical effects can harm a fetus, the FDA says the fact that these effects exist means that prenatal ultrasounds can't be considered completely innocuous. (emphasis mine)
Despite doing studies on animals, "most animal studies have not identified any fetal harm with low-dose ultrasound exposure." Although a few studies found "delayed speech" to be a side affect, one wonders whether or not the children already had the problem before the ultra sound (something that should be determined before jumping to conclusions) since so few of them did.
The only other "side effect" found to be consistent from studies were a "subsequent left-handedness" in boys (and how does that hinder children?). This argument seems to be falling on it's face as Junk Yard Blog explains his reasoning why the opposition seeks this bill to become law.
Why would Planned Parenthood, an industry leader that aborts children and makes millions doing it, care a bit about the safety of children in the womb? Simple. It's hard to see an ultrasound and remain pro-choice. Once you see that your potentially aborted wad of tissues has fingers, toes, eyes and a nose and all the rest it becomes a person in your mind, and that makes you less likely to become one of Margaret Sanger's company's customers.
Abortion is a volume business, after all. Gotta keep that cash flow out of the red.
Ultra Sound could be the potential death for the abortion industry as people would believe their "own lying eyes" over what the doctor claims is merely tissue. The Pro-Abortion crowd seems more interested in keeping their industry profitable than in allowing the truth to be exposed. Giving mothers the chance to see their baby is a more reasonable measure which would allow them to decide for themselves whether or not they are merely carrying a bulk of "tissue" or a human baby.
Fortunately, our folks in Indiana have the right idea about implementing this measure and probably should contact their Illinois friends and reveal the ridiculousness of this proposed bill.
Deutsch â¢ EspaÃ±ol â¢ FranÃ§ais â¢ Italiano â¢ Portugese â¢ æ¥æ¬èª â¢ íêµ â¢ æ±è¯
hey, its Kristi just saying hey. Check my journal for pics from when me and Doug went to DC to protest against the World Bank and IMF.
Comment Policy: Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of this site or the authors, and are the legal responsibility of the original commenter. Intelligent opinions welcome. Comment here.
By Darnell Clayton â¢ 7:09 PM â¢ Email Post â¢ â¢
Enter your email address below to subscribe.
View Blog Stats
Plus 10,667 hits before August 12, 2005
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of anyone that I work with, for, or associate with in any manner.