Pre-abortion sonogram required under new Texas law

There’s good news on the pro-life front out of Texas. Governor Rick Perry just signed into law a bill that requires women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram before going through with the procedure. The law also requires a 24-hour wait period between the sonogram and the abortion.

As you can imagine, pro-abortion legislators are not happy about the law. The Associated Press reports:

“Opponents of the legislation said the requirement would be traumatizing to women going through an already difficult situation.”

The opponents are certainly right. I suspect that it will indeed be traumatizing for a mother to come face to face with the humanity of the unborn child that she intends to have killed. But wouldn’t the alternative be worse? Wouldn’t it be worse to keep these mothers in the dark about the humanity of their babies? How can any serious person suggest that that would be better to cover it up? Yet that is exactly the position that the pro-abortionists are in.

The pictures don’t lie.

14 Responses to Pre-abortion sonogram required under new Texas law

  1. Robert Slowley May 23, 2011 at 8:00 am #

    It’s very exciting to hear about these sorts of developments in the US. Here in the UK the issue is entirely closed down, the church, and Christians essentially never talk about or question abortion (outside of church itself).

  2. Jason D. May 23, 2011 at 8:01 am #

    Great news!

  3. HC May 23, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    Why should it be traumatizing if the sonogram simply shows a mass of tissue, no different than a tumor…? Indeed the pictures do not lie!!!

  4. donsands May 23, 2011 at 10:17 am #

    Hallelujah!

    Every child is made in the image of God.

    We had a sister in Christ share in our church how she had 3 abortions. Her last abortion, she said she her the cracking of her baby’s skull. It was like the sound of a walnut being carked open. As she shared this, she wept deeply.

    May we end this legal kill as soon as possible in our nation.

    Thanks for posting this terrific news. It’s the darkest and most fierce spiritual battle filed we have. Satan loves to kill babies. He loves it.

  5. Christianes May 23, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    Hi Don Sands,

    Our governor cut funding to our state’s largest medical center for children, with special units for prematurely-born who cannot live without medical support at birth.

    Now the largest insurance companies have bailed out on that hospital center, leaving many without help.

    My question is a basic one: IF states are going to order sonograms for the purpose of preventing a mother from aborting her child;
    can they not ALSO morally accept the role of giving funds to a major children’s center with a NICU (new-born intensive care unit service?

    I don’t understand the reasoning of allowing a premature infant no help because ‘the state can’t afford to continue funding’ . . .

    I’m for saving children . . .
    but the lack of integrity of some politicians confuses me.
    Do they want VOTES or living babies ?
    Do they want to keep their funding for corporate breaks and lower taxes, or do they want living infants?

    I need help to understand this.

  6. donsands May 23, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    “Do they want VOTES or living babies ?”

    Depends on the man or the woman who is the politician.
    If I were in the State senate in Maryland, then i would speak out against abortion, and surely speak up for funding hospitals.

    Politics can be a nasty way of life, or it can be less confusing if we would adhere to the Word of God.

  7. Oh-Jay Lackmon-Bay May 24, 2011 at 8:31 am #

    It is not incumbent upon anyone to vote to fund anything at a hospital in order for them to legally require a sonagram be peformed before any abortion along with a 24 hour waiting period. There is no inconsitency, particularly since abortion shouldn’t be legal anyway.

  8. Christianes May 24, 2011 at 11:15 am #

    Where are the voices of the women here?

  9. Andy May 24, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

    I think the sonogram and 24 hour wait are a great idea. I am also hoping though that we as the church will carry the ball further and have good care and help available for those that then decide to carry the baby to term.

  10. yankeegospelgirl May 24, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    Thanks be to God.

  11. Chris May 25, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    Christianes the choices of women are the choices of whether to engage in irresponsible sexual behavior or not. A woman loses the right to choose only for herself when a new life is created.

  12. Barry Applewhite May 26, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    I like your anti-abortion stance, but I wish you had found a different picture to put with it. Many of us who live in Texas see Rick Perry as nothing more than a political opportunist who loves the very limelight that picture shows. He regularly signs bills into law and then, as in this case, holds a big event before the press where he signs the bill all over again in the midst of lots of hoop-la. Sometimes he “signs” the same bill three or four times at different places around the state.

    Let’s save our support for the babies.

    -Barry

  13. Chris May 26, 2011 at 1:50 pm #

    Opps I see you said “voices” not “choices”. I need to read more carefully!

    …nevermind… 🙂

  14. Christianes May 28, 2011 at 1:30 am #

    Barry, you may be right . . . we heard today that Rick Perry is ‘thinking about’ running for President.

    Strange . . . for someone who once talked about Texas ‘seceding’ from the union.

    BTW, most Republican women around my neck of the woods do not care for the idea of any political party intervening between them and their doctors. I think it has something to do with not liking ‘big government’.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes