Resolved: The Pennsylvania governor's mandatory ultrasound law is just.

): Factually fair; correct; proper; acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good With the definition of the word established, I move on to the iteration of my case. Contention 1: The law places hinders on the constitutional right to an abortion. We look toward the explanations and conclusions of the Supreme Court law ruling on the constitutionality of abortions as a right under a woman's right to privacy Roe v. Wade (1973), where the decision of an abortion is private between a woman and a doctor, as a context in order to explain why women have a right to abortion under the Constitution in the United States, and what we see is that this law places limits on the full exercise of this right and violates the privacy of the decision of an abortion. Sub-point 1a: The Pennsylvania law places a delay in achieving an abortion. Tarinna Keene, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, comments on the laws in mandatory ultrasounds: "It had nothing to do with women’s health or determining gestational age. It had everything to do with the government shaming women and trying to put up yet another roadblock to accessing their constitutional rights as well as handing a ‘win’ to right-wing advocacy groups to shore up their conservative credentials. ” What the law itself does is not only makes women see an ultrasound of the fetus during the time period of its development, but also requires a 24-hour period in order to file all of the paperwork and whatnot as a delay period, which subsequentially makes it more difficult in attaining an abortion, which has no small effect as the following reports, considering that many women in the state live far away from abortion providers:". .. Restrictions have lengthened the time needed to obtain an abortion, especially for women who do not live near a provider and those who must make more than one trip. In Penn- sylvania, Steinberg says, 90% of all abor- tions are performed by providers (includ- ing hospitals and private physicians) in eight of the state's 67 counties. .. "Sub-point 1b: The law violates the privacy of the decision of an abortion. A Huffington post article explains that despite the fact that women can close their eyes during the ultrasound as Gov. Tom Corbett (R-PA) explains, "the doctor will have to turn the ultrasound image toward her face, give her two signed copies of the printed image, describe the number of heartbeats per minute and tell her if that's normal or not for a fetus of that age. She then has to wait 24 hours and bring all the signed paperwork and both ultrasound images to her abortion doctor in order to have the procedure legally, and the doctor has to repeat to her the age of the fetus. " At the point where the government of Pennsylvania is evidently attempting to influence a decision considered to be private according to the Supreme Court ruling as a direct interpretation of the Constitution, it is clear that the government's law is violating the right to privacy on the part of the woman. Tarinna Keene explained the same thing, and with the number of things that occur in order to make the woman see the image of the fetus, it's evident the government is trying to make an influence in the private decision. Furthermore, at the point where this requires a permission slip from the government in order to conduct the abortion, this is only further violating the right to privacy. Contention 2: Information for abortions is available on the Internet and by doctors regardless. To respond to any argument made on the side of the PRO or conservatives with regard that this is only "informing" a decision, the mandate is unneccesary regardless considering the amount of information avaiable through the World Wide Web, including statistics on abortions, the safety of abortions, and anything else required. If this information is not provided by the web, doctors can also provide any information for the abortion. Needless to say, it is questionable as to how this mandate will better inform women about the abortion or why the information provided will be in any way practical for the decision. Contention 3: The Pennsylvania medical community warns against the mandate for safety reasons. Marilyn J. Heine, the president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, wrote the following to a representative of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives: "it sets a dangerous medical precedent by legislating specific diagnostic protocols. For that reason alone, we oppose [the bill] and respectfully urge you to do the same,” What this talks about is the increased risks that the mandate places, including the following, comparing this scenario with the Virginia law mandating the same thing:"Virginia’s ultrasound bill prevents doctors from participating in the decision to administer certain medical tests to their patients. That, in and of itself, should raise alarm. Legislators in Virginia have claimed that a major impetus behind the passage of this bill was to prevent complications during abortions, such as ectopic pregnancies. Though this may come as a surprise to government officials in Virginia, doctors are actually well aware of the risks of abortion; that is why they order ultrasound tests to be performed when they deem them to be medically necessary. The key word here, however, is necessary. In many instances, doctors, in their professional judgment, choose not to perform such ultrasound tests because they are often regarded as superfluous and not medically indicated. Virginia’s determination to take such decisions out of the hands of doctors and health professionals is foolish and, quite frankly, scary. Moreover, arbitrarily enforcing every female to undergo such a procedure, one that can often be invasive (all ultrasounds conducted within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy must be performed trans-vaginally), puts both the patient and fetus through discomfort and inevitable risk without any proven benefit. Ultrasound imaging has been in standard medical practice for well over fifty years, and its record of safety has never been challenged. However, like every medical procedure, it cannot be considered to be completely innocuous. For one, there is the ubiquitous risk of infection (although specific epidemiological data is lacking). In addition, laboratory studies have demonstrated that ultrasound energy can produce tangible physical effects in fetal tissue, such as mechanical vibrations, rise in temperature, and the formation of cavities within the tissue. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that all fetal exposure to ultrasound for nonmedical purposes should be avoided. " References: Salik, Jonathan. "Virginia Ultrasound Bill Is Reckless for Doctors and Dangerous For Women Considering Abortion. " Web. 18 Mar. 2012. <. http://www.policymic.com...;. "PA Docs Oppose Mandatory Ultrasound Bill. - Capitol Ideas Blog. " Capitol Ideas. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. <. http://blogs.mcall.com...;. Bassett, Laura. "Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania Governor, On Ultrasound Mandate: Just 'Close Your Eyes'" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost. com, 15 Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. <. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;.