Home ProLife Coalition of PA Get Email Updates Support Us Privacy Policy Email Us
Pennsylvania is For The Living
ProLife Coalition of PA
  • ContactUs
  • Donate
  • PressRelease
  • Get Email
    Updates
     
    Log-In
    User Name:
    Password
    S.C. Ultrasound Bill Causes Questions

    CBS: Is Taxpayer-Financed Abortion Too 'Moderate' for GOP?
    Posted by Ken Shepherd on April 6, 2007 - 02:20.

    This CBS "Pure Horserace" article took the occasion of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani reaffirming his support of taxpayer-funded abortions to ask, "Is Rudy Too Moderate?"

    Oklahoma Lawmakers Vote to Cut Medicaid-Funded Abortion

    The Oklahoma House voted to discontinue the use of taxpayer money to pay for killing preborn babies. The state Senate already approved the measure, LifeNews reported.

    Rep. John Wright, the bill's sponsor, said taxpayers don't want to be forced to pay for abortion through Medicaid.

    The measure now returns to the upper chamber for a final vote.

     

    By SEANNA ADCOX
    Associated Press Writer

    COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Requiring doctors to show women seeking an abortion an ultrasound image of their fetus could be declared unconstitutional if it is interpreted as forcing an unwilling patient, the state attorney general told legislators Wednesday in a letter. Attorney General Henry McMaster told the same committee a week ago that he supports the bill and that it could survive a legal challenge. The letter that was read to lawmakers Wednesday was intended to offer advice, he wrote.

    ``In my opinion, it would be illegal and improper for the state to force a person seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound image against her will,'' wrote McMaster, a Republican, who did not attend the hearing.

    The bill, already passed by the state House and being considered by a Senate panel, would require women seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound - something usually done already to verify the fetus' age. It would also require that the ultrasound images ``be reproduced and reviewed with the mother'' by a doctor or technician.

    McMaster wrote that the legislation puts the requirements on the doctor, not the woman. He said he believes it's constitutional, as long as the word ``review'' is not interpreted as making an unwilling patient look at the picture against her will.

    The legislation would be easier to defend in court if it's clarified that a woman can object to looking at the image, McMaster wrote. ``You can't hold somebody's eyelids open,'' McMaster told the same panel last week. ``If she refuses, there's nothing you can do.''

    After hearing testimony, the Senate panel postponed making a decision. It will meet again in two weeks.