The main purpose of the abortion process is to prevent a life to evolve, and if there’s a possibility of an unstable environment, the child will suffer. If you think about it, the child may agonize through poverty, increasing the governor’s budget and society taxes for child support (along with many other children living through poverty). I’m not sure how this will benefit the governor in any way. This bill does take control of women’s choices, I believe. It seems as a subliminal interpretation forced upon to make them think twice about their decisions.
Looking at the extent, this sonogram bill influenced the dictation and control of women’s rights. Women didn’t fight long and hard for their freedom to be involved in such a contemptible and shameful event. As long as they acknowledge the appropriate time and limited fetus growth to have an abortion, I don’t see the purpose for the ultrasound. The sonogram just manipulates individuals to feel guilty, as in those charity or donation commercials where they display an unfortunate puppy. These concealed communications Rick Perry is providing just compel me to feel that our state cannot rely on him for honesty and hopes for improvement. It sickens me that Perry would engage into an issue that is not corrupted.
Christina Nguyen, a student in Texas Government at Austin Community College has written an article regarding the new House Bill 15, which states that a woman is required to have a sonogram and discussion with a licensed physician about her unborn fetus before having her abortion. After thoroughly evaluating her views on Bill 15, it is exceedingly obvious that she is against this new bill. She begins her argument by describing the emotional impact this requirement has on the pregnant women, stating “What if they choose not to involve with the interactions of perceiving the fetus’ beating heart and moving limbs?” She indicates that by forcing a woman to fulfill the constraint of a sonogram, she is obliged to learn more about the growing fetus inside of her. As a result, she may become more attached, thus making the decision to get an abortion more difficult.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, she describes the idea that a woman may be protecting the unborn child from hardships such as poverty by having an abortion. “The main purpose of the abortion process is to prevent a life to evolve, and if there’s a possibility of an unstable environment, the child will suffer.” Yet, a woman may second guess providing this protection if she must see a visual picture of the fetus inside of her.
However, although she does explain the negative emotional impact of this bill, she fails to incorporate the legal violations it imposes. For example, this bill violates an aspect of a person’s first amendment right. By forcing a doctor to explain details of the woman’s fetus, when he might not otherwise chose to do so, the doctor is not being given his/her full rights of freedom of speech.
Additionally, she fails to express the infringement of a woman’s fourth amendment, which is unreasonable search and seizure. In forcing women to have a doctor examine her and her fetus in an invasive manner through using a sonogram, than she would have otherwise chosen, could be construed as an unreasonable search.
Thus, Christina Nguyen does enlighten the readers in her article “Sonogram Required for Abortion” of the negative aspects of this new sonogram bill due to the emotional stress it causes for the pregnant women. However, she fails to fully develop the legal aspects of the argument against this bill. Had she added the violation of the first and fourth amendment I believe her article could have been more convincing, hence making a more substantial impact on all her readers, including myself.