one is not required.
"which she said is the only way to perform a sonogram on women who are less than eight to 10 weeks pregnant"
That is simply not true. You can perform a sonogram on anyone. In most cases, it just won't show anything.
Unless the legislation specifies it, it is not worth getting bent out of shape about a TV since it is not required. If folks want to get upset about the sonogram requirement in the first place, that is perfectly legit.
But creating a hyperbolic argument to oppose it doesn't help. It basically says "We couldn't get upset enough about the real requirement so we are going to get upset about a requirement that isn't a requirement". That turns logical people off to the cause in a heartbeat.
That being said, from HB-15
"
4) "Sonogram" means the use of ultrasonic waves for
diagnostic or therapeutic purposes, specifically to monitor an
unborn child."
(B) the physician who is to perform the abortion
displays the sonogram images in a quality consistent with current
medical practice in a manner that the pregnant woman may view them;
(C) the physician who is to perform the abortion
provides, in a manner understandable to a layperson, a verbal
explanation of the results of the sonogram images, including a
medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the
presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of external members
and internal organs; and
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/HB00015F.htm
The " in a quality consistent with current medical practice in a manner that the pregnant woman may view them;" part may infer that but it is open to interpretation.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read