Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 3, 2005, to prohibit performing an abortion unless the physician has first performed an ultrasound, provided the patient with an opportunity to view the active ultrasound image of the fetus, and provided the patient with a physical picture of the ultrasound image of the fetus

The vote was 69 in favor, 37 opposed and 4 not voting

(House Roll Call 138 at House Journal 45)

Click here to view bill details.

More $$$ in the pockets of the medical establishment. How pathetic.

I second the other citizen's comment... this is obsurd. How can the government legislate medical expenses? If you can provide me a logical argument for why this is somehow critical to the woman's health (or any other legitimate reason that doesn't involve some religious/right-wing effort to "change a woman's mind") I will give you a lollipop. Don't waste tax payer dollars on this sort of crap - why don't you spend your time trying to figure out ways to better feed, house, clothe, and educate the EXISTING children in this state!!!

Abortion providers have and use this technology to locate and map fetuses currently. It is very difficult to extract a fetus during an early abortion, so the ultrasounds are monitored by doctors during the procedure as the tools are worked through the uterous. If providers don't have this equipment, then they should have to purchase this equipment immediately and be given the resources to do so by the state if necessary. Not having untrasound technology greatly increases the chance of injury to the mother. People on both sides of the abortion issue will agree that the decision is one of the most important ones a person will make in their lifetime, and may have very devastating effects on a woman's health and mental well-being after a procedure, as had been documented. The mother is not compelled to look at the image, but is merely offered the opportunity to view it and take a copy home if she wishes. Having an abortion, like any major medical decision, should not be made lightly, and a prospective patient should have every technology available to reflect on her pending decision to ensure that abortions are indeed safe and rare.

I don't know where I fall on this issue, but this person wrote a logical, thoughtful response. As opposed to the first two messages.. my two cents.

I wasn't aware that ultrasounds were used for a termination. Safety of the woman is paramount and if an ultrasound helps ... great. But, this legislator appears to be concerned with the shock value of an ultrasound image ... not the medical necessity. The Republicans won't be satisfied until abortion is illegal and we return to the days of back-ally, coat-hanger abortions.

Rep. Tobocman, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted against this bill because I do not believe in mandating health procedures against citizens who are exercising a right guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution. Legislators should leave appropriate medical decisions to individuals and their doctors."

Rep. Alma Smith, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I urge my colleagues to step back for a few minutes and contemplate what HB 4446 really does. Should this bill pass, for the first time the Michigan legislature will mandate the use of a medically unnecessary procedure, conducted on a fully competent patient probably against her will, with no benefit to the public health and general welfare, for the sole purpose of providing yet another image to coerce a pregnant woman from the exercise of her legal right to choose, and establish the surrender of her constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy as the only way to refuse the procedure to be needlessly conducted upon her. Current law mandates that a health care provider show a woman seeking an abortion 'a medically accurate depiction, illustration or photograph and description' of an embryo at the same gestational age as her own. This bill's ultrasound requirement introduces a compulsory, potentially risky procedure that results in an image which will add no new information. It is even more unreasonable when we understand that 62% of women seeking abortions have already carried at least one pregnancy to full term: they know what a baby is. According to our Department of Community Health almost 90% of abortions occur in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. Over half of all abortions take place within the first eight weeks. It is extremely difficult to detect a visible image of an embryo in a normal ultrasound in the first twelve weeks. Producing a useful visual image for the purpose of this legislation will most probably require the invasive and more expensive vaginal ultrasound procedure. With complete disregard for a woman's health, this legislation does not require the provider to reveal the potential immediate or future health risks of an invasive ultrasound procedure. Given current law and gestational reality, there is no compelling state interest to mandate this medically unnecessary procedure that could under the operation of Section 17015 cost the state conservatively from 3 to 9 million dollars. Despite everything--the irresponsibly, unrevealed risk to her health, the burdensome cost to the pregnant woman that itself may pose an obstacle, the potential cost to the state--this legislation denies a fully competent woman the liberty to refuse a medically unnecessary, potentially risky procedure EXCEPT that she abrogate her legal and constitutional right to choose. Ladies and gentlemen, when you use the state's superior force to erect substantial obstacles to a woman's legal right THAT is unwarranted interference rising to the level of coercion. And coercion is a violative affront to the existing law. But, because a majority can, this legislature is poised to force a fully competent woman of reproductive age to sustain a probable burdensome and unjustifiable cost for a medically unnecessary procedure so you can 'educate' her in contradiction of her constitutional right and her personally determined best interest. Where does this stop? Probably at the court house door where an overreach of arrogant legislative power can still be checked."

Rep. Zelenko, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: The legislation does not provide women with more information to make informed decisions, prevent unwanted pregnancies, nor have the best interests of women in mind. This bill unnecessarily increases health care costs, further reducing access to health care for low-income women. Current law already mandates that health care providers show a woman seeking an abortion the image of a fetus at the development stage closest to that of the patient's fetus. Opponents further argue that women should not have to be subjected to invasive medical procedures for political points. Most first trimester ultrasounds are vaginal, which many women consider invasive. In addition, opponents also believe that state legislators should be working to help men and women make responsible choices so abortions are rare through increased funding for family planning, accessible and affordable contraception for everyone, and provide young people comprehensive abstinence-plus education. It is for these reasons I voted no on HB 4446."

Rep. Kathleen Law, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on HB 4446. This is another attempt to create more barriers to legal health care. The legislation does not provide women with more information to make informed decisions, prevent unwanted pregnancies, nor have the best interests of women in mind. This bill unnecessarily increases health care costs, further reducing access to health care for women. Current law already mandates that health care providers show a woman seeking an abortion the image of a fetus at the development stage closest to that of the patient's fetus. Women should not have to be subjected to invasive medical procedures for political points. Most first trimester ultrasounds are vaginal, which many women consider them invasive. State legislators should be working to help families make responsible choices so abortions are rare. Increased funding for family planning, accessible and affordable contraception for everyone, and education about STD, birth control and abstinence are valuable services which move society away from unwanted pregnancies."

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Michigan's Informed Consent for Abortion, enacted in 1993, requires that certain information be made available to a woman seeking an abortion at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. The statute requires both a written summary of the procedure as well as depictions, illustrations or photographs of fetal development corresponding to the gestational age nearest the probable gestational age of the woman's fetus. To these requirements HB 4446 would require that a specific medical procedure (an ultrasound) be conducted for no medical reason other than to provide an opportunity for a woman seeking an abortion to view the ultrasound. According to the Michigan Section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ultrasounds are not the only type of test used to determine the gestational age of the pregnancy. Thus, HB 4446 specially mandates that a specific test be used--a test for no other reason than to offer the opportunity to a woman to view a the ultrasound images--which are essentially the same photos (although probably not as clear) as those already offered in the informational package mandated under current law. This requirement, however, is not only redundant, but because it mandates that a specific test be performed, it also raises serious constitutional questions. I supported amendments to this bill, specifically amendments number 5 and 6, the first of which would have avoided constitutional problems by offering the patient the opportunity to view the active ultrasound image when the ultrasound procedure was performed, but the House, unwisely, defeated the amendment. So too did the House unwisely defeat an amendment which would have provided the patient with information on family planning, including, but not limited to, all methods of contraceptives approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, abstinence and natural family planning methods. The defeat of this amendment is rather surprising, even ironic, considering that the key witness testifying in committee in support of this bill admitted to having four abortions. It seems entirely reasonable that if this Legislature really wants to prevent abortions, than we should have adopted the amendment that would have greatly assisted women and their partners in making responsible choices. Instead of doing this totally unnecessary legislation, we should be working together on the serious problems of unplanned pregnancies. For these reasons, I voted no on HB 4446."

I suggest to all who voted to pass this to think hard about why the hell you are in office. Is it to push your own political agenda or to actually make decisions that are in the best interest of the citizens you represent? It looks to me like the former. Abortion hurts women when lawmakers impose these unnecessary stipulations. Abortions will always occur legal or not...make educated decisions that help not hurt. Also, I've had a vaginal ultrasound "vaginal probe" before. If the name isn't invasive enough the procedure more than makes up for it. Thanks for mandating that to 90% of all women who will recieve abortions.

Please stop legislating morality. Take care of the economy here in Michigan and get out of my private life.

>Please stop legislating morality. Take care of the economy here in Michigan and get out of my private life.< I agree wholheartedly with you sentiment that legislators should stop meddling in the private lives of folks here in Michigan., Couldn’t agree more. But to imply that legislators are responsible for “taking care of the Michigan economy” seems a bit off the beam. Unless, of course, we believe the economy should be run absolutely by the state rather than influenced primarily by market forces. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, and would prefer that our legislators exercise great restraint in fooling around with our economic as well as our more intimately personal lives.

I was just wondering if our representatives read these posted comments regularly? I would assume that they do, but I was just curious...

2005 House Bill 4446 (Require ultrasound be shown before abortion ) is the worst piece of nonsense I have seen voted on in a while. Who is paying for this waste of medical resources and time. Abortion is legal. Next you'll want smokers to view chest X-rays before buying cigarettes! Get back to work on balancing the budget and stop wasting time on nonsense like this.

Nice to see that so many of our democrats couldn't muster the courage to vote properly on this bill. Bieda, Byrum, Acciavitti to name a few. Jut an absolute waste. Can someone please find me a democrat with a spine??

So let me understand you correctly. You oppose giving women the option to view an ultrasound should they choose? Why in the world do you think so many Democrats voted for this - it promotes informed choice. Per our Governor's office: "Boyd said Sunday that the legislation was drafted in cooperation with abortion-rights groups and would not change current practice." - LSJ. Stop being an extremist.

In response to your 'private life'. If someone killed a born child we would all want justice-even thugh it was part of the murderer's 'private life'. You were once a fetus--someone could have killed you as a fetus and possible not been charged with murder. Do you think you'd be here if as a fetus you were 'aborted'? Women have a right to know what is really going on during an abortion. Their baby is being terminated-and that can never be reversed.

When women have abortions, a significant percent of them have, within about 10 years, psychological and emotional trauma. Sometimes this occurs when the women become pregnant with a wanted baby. The begin to realize the loss of the child they aborted. Many suffer depression, anxiety, nightmares, difficulty in relationships (spouses & children) and other issues all as a result of the abortion. An ultrasound may help a woman see her fetus as her baby (just like she would if she wasn't considering an abortion)and perhaps allow the fetus to live through birth and possibly even be given to a waiting couple who wants to adopt. Or she may raise her child responsibly. Do you think that you got here without being a 'fetus' at some point?

Supporters of this legislation want to make sure women seeking an abortion are traumatized to the maximum degree. Let no personal decision go unpunished, they say.

that are for being allowed to kill your babies are already born. Coincidence????

You Say "make sure women seeking an abortion are traumatized" I say "when you bash in a skull and suction out the brains and try to convince all the usefull idiots that this is somehow a legitimate "choice?" then you need a little trauma. If we called it what it is and try to make people explaine why they are "for" legal baby murder my guess is that even the usefull idiots would wake up.

You just butt out of other people's personal affairs and business? What a woman does with her body, or anything that is growing in it is her affair, and not yours. Freedom. When a person is not free to tend to their own personal affairs in the way he/she sees fit, due to state authority, he/she is a chattel of the state. Why do you support that kind of intrusive government?

that I should "butt out" of the folks next door when he beats his 1 year old to a pulp? Why not? You probably think that it is just fine if the state comes into my private business and tells me how to run it so that you can have your way. Tell me how you can justify killing a baby but think it's wrong to kill a mass murderer. You Say.. "Freedom. When a person is not free to tend to their own personal affairs in the way he/she sees fit, due to state authority, he/she is a chattel of the state" Why can the cops put me in jail for deinking a few beers and driving home when I haven't hurt anyone or anything? Why can government tell me what I can and can't do with my land but shouldn't be allowed to stop you from killing a baby? Why do you think it's okay for the state to tell me that I can't carry a weapon to defend myself unless I jump through all their hoops? My guess is that you wouldn't know what to do with freedom if it bit you on the butt. Why do you folks think that if you call it choice it will make it easier for the mother who kills her unborn baby? Do you really think most people are that stupid?

Of other people's personal business. Mind your own. There is nothing difficult to understand about that. Quit demanding that the coercive power of the state be used to impose your particular beliefs on others.

of government doesn't mind telling my kids that abortion (taboo in my religion) is perfectly okey-dokey. if THAT isn't coercive enough to get involved and motivated, then nothing is.

DO think everyone is that stupid. thats wht they think you need all that help they keep taxing you for.

Of educating your own spawn to your own moral standards and philosophical beliefs. Let the rest of us alone to take care of educating our own kids to our moral beliefs and philosophies. That's what personal freedom is about.

okay for YOU to educate MY kids with YOUR philosophical beliefs, but it's NOT okay for ME to insist that YOU stop teaching YOUR beliefs to MY CHILDREN? KINDA ONE SIDED AROUND HERE WITH THIS FREEDOM THING, AIN'T YA?

That you don't understand? What a woman does with her own body, and anything growing within it is that woman's business, and nobody else's unless she chooses to make it their business. Quit trying to impose your philosophical beliefs on others, by means of government coercion and force.

trying to impose MY ethical beliefs when YOU stop imposing YOUR ethical beliefs on MY children. i have NO RIGHT to raise my children according to MY beliefs as long as YOUR beliefs are the law of the land. i say you exercise YOUR belief in SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE by getting the STATE out of MY CHURCH'S BELIEFS. i notice you are only for the personal freedoms of those who agree with you, and to hell with the religious beliefs of those who don't.

...(on both sides of the issue), actually try working on a solution to the problem of too many unwanted pregnancies. It is time for people on both sides of the issue to face some realities. Reality #1 -- Abortion will occur (and has always occurred) when there are unwanted pregnancies. Either they are performed by doctors with proper medical equipment or they are performed by women with coat hangers. Like it or not, there were abortions before Roe vs. Wade was legalized and there will continue to be abortions if it is overturned. Reality #2 -- Adoption will not address the issue of all the unwanted children out there. There are plenty of adoptive parents for the perfectly healthy Caucasian babies out there. There are not enough for the children of color or for children who have disabilities. So, what is a good solution for the problem of too many unwanted pregnancies? The reality of the situation is that there is no good solution. Trying to solve that problem is like trying to put the genie back in the bottle after it is already out. We need to be putting our efforts into the front end of the problem. We need to work together to teach our children (both boys and girls) that sex does not equal love. We need to teach our girls that their value does not come from being decorative objects on the arm of some man. We need to teach our boys that being able to create a baby does not make you a man. Finally, we need to teach all of our children about the concept of responsiblilty. Then maybe we will solve the problem of too many pregnancies.

that young girls see "easy" abortions as a way out of having to face the RESPONSIBILITIES of having sex, one of which is WANTING the child you are probably creating. the other is BEING ABLE TO RAISE THAT CHILD. all the solutions you mention require RESPONSIBILITY. why should these kids be RESPONSIBLE when they can take the (legal) easy way out? no, banning abortions will not stop abortions, but LEGALIZING abortions will increase the number of abortions many times over. look what happened to the abortion numbers since ROE V. WADE. if you give kids an easy 'out', they will take it every time, no matter what we try to teach them.

teaching that to our kids, then the liberal supreme court tought them different. it seems that my RELIGION has been trumped by your STATE. WHAT'S NEXT? mandating every jew have pork sausage for breakfast?

To home school your child, or send your child to a private school, if you do not like what is being taught in the public schools. It is a matter of your choice. Interference with a woman's right to make decisions and take actions regarding matter growing within her body is bad business, particularly when it is done by government force. Women must be left alone to make their own decisions. Otherwise, their are not mistresses of their own bodies, but slaves of the state.

About minding your own business? What a woman chooses to do with her own body is her business, and not yours, or the government's. It is a very simple thing. Take care of your own personal business as you see fit, and leave other people alone to take care of theirs, as they see fit.

I cannot believe all these comments I am reading.. Stay out of my personal business, my body, my baby bla bla bla... A womans choice!!! excuse me, is when she decides to have sex. I am not discussing rape or other incest cases. I'm talking a choice to abort because ( I just can't raise a baby with out the daddy around or.. I just dont want another one.. Freak'n rediculous!! A woman makes the CHOICES to, Have sex, to use or not use protection, and among others I will not list... Everyone here who is pro choice and has made a statement so that it's rediculous to show a woman her baby before she kills it.. needs to be done.. lets just say you are mentally competent.. do you think everyone is seeking an abortion is mentally competent, and is given information that is not verbally biast that.. it's ok.. it's just cells or tissue...?? Give me a break... I think ppl just want an excuse to not take responsibility for thier action of choosing to have an abortion.. By having to look at the image would further dig in the guilt of what they are truely doing... Not wanting to look at your own face in the mirror huh?? Even I have called an abortion clinic, for information when a pregnancy was unexpected.. and ya know what kind of information I recieved??? Sure honey, we understand, there is no way you could take care of a baby like that.. you are doin the right thing.. why dont we make you an appointment... THANK GOD, I knew in my heart I could not do that to my baby. Sure there are circumstances that are uneventfull, it happens.. Take responsibility for your offspring.. and quit trying to get rid of them like a piece of garbage that you dont want to look at.. as they throw it in the trash..

To the conclusion. For the people who feel they are not so sure they want to go through the procedure, seeing the baby just might be the deal breaker for some... And after you see the baby , and you still want to do it.. then you can walk away knowing what you have done and justification for why you did it.. Waste of legisilation is rediculous.. When you have surgery, does the dr, not tell you the risks? Or would you just say.. ok surgery.. ask no questions.. Everyone has the right to be fully informed.. And just the fact that someone would not look at thier child before commiting such an act, is further driving in my belief that ppl know it's wrong and they just dont want to face the facts, and just be allowed to ignore it all and "block it out" as if the pregnancy never happend....

It's that simple. A woman's body, and whatever is growing in it, be that a malignant tumor, a cyst, or an embryo or a fetus, must belong to the woman, and it must be her unburdened choice as to how to deal with it. Period. There is no other way if she is to be a free person. Those who want to use the force of government to coerce (or even influence) womens' decisions as to what to do with their own bodies and health issues seek to institute slavery.