Warren says MARAL's research hasn't found any doctors who would refuse showing an ultrasound to any patient making the request. But requiring a doctor to ask a patient if she'd like to see an ultrasound in proximity to an abortion is a move Warren has described as "emotionally manipulative."
She says there's another problem as well.
"One of the biggest changes in this legislation is putting a list of places women can get free ultrasounds on the state Web site," Warren says. Typically, an ultrasound costs between $300 and $700, depending on the stage of the pregnancy.
Some of clinics that offer free ultrasounds, Warren says, are geared toward influencing women against abortion.
"We would rather not have that on the state Web site," Warren says. After all, as she points out, the state posts no list of abortion providers.
Asking a patient if they want to see their ultrasound is "emotionally manipulative?" Please.
How out of the mainstream is MARAL looking? This legislation was passed by a vote of 36-0. Not a single pro-choice state senator voted against it. Not one.
On MARAL's web site, they call the bill "Forced Medical Procedures for Women." Yet when the "forced" medical procedure (which is performed anyway) section is removed, MARAL still opposes the legislation. The real problem wasn't a "forced" medical procedure, it's that MARAL doesn't think abortion-minded women should know they can have the option of viewing their ultrasound.
If Rebekah wants abortion providers on the list of places that offer free ultrasounds then why not encourage abortion providers to provide ultrasounds for free? What would be the point of putting a listing of abortion providers on Michigan's informed consent web site? If a woman is looking for informed consent information, it means that she's already contacted an abortion clinic.