Ema at The Well-Timed Period is rather miffed that Michigan's pro-choice governor, Jennifer Granholm, signed legislation which will give women considering an abortion the option of viewing on ultrasound if their abortion provider performs an ultrasound.
I think part of Ema's problem with the bill is that she thinks that HB 4446 does more than it actually does. This is partially the fault of the Michigan web site she links to which doesn't differentiate between Michigan's original informed consent bill and HB 4446 (which adds unto the informed consent bill) .
Another part of her problem seems to be with the act of performing an ultrasound. She's calls performing an ultrasound a "politically-indicated test" even though the National Abortion Federation notes that for first trimester surgical abortions:
"Ultrasonography, using a consistent and published table of fetalmeasurements can be of clinical value in verifying intra-uterine pregnancy and gestational age"
and says that for second trimester abortions,
"Gestational age must be verified by ultrasonography, using a consistent and published table of fetal measurements, prior to the termination of a pregnancy clinically estimated to be more than 14 weeks LMP."
For some reason, Ema thinks that giving women the option of viewing their ultrasound (if their abortion provider happens to performs one) has the "potential to negatively impact the medical care of female patients of reproductive age."
Ema also goes on to attack Gilda Jacobs, one of the most pro-choice legislators in Michigan.
What is it that some pro-choicers fear about women having the option of viewing their ultrasound? I can't fathom how a rational pro-choice person thinks that giving women the choice of whether or not to view their ultrasound is so bad.