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

Rebuttals C1) This new law in no way violates anything presented in Roe v. Wade, the woman's right to have an abortion is still there and the information is still held between the woman and the doctor. This in no way inhibits the woman's ability to get an abortion. The right to an abortion is still there and is untouched because it puts no limitations on abortion but rather adds a hoop to jump through. Laws regulating abortion have been proven Constitutional as long as it does not put undue blockage on abortion i.e you can charge poor people thousands of dollars, you can't require a doctor's permission etc. This in no way violates any of that. Anyone can still have an abortion and it is there right and choice to do so. 1a) This point has no unlawful misconduct since it, again, does not prevent a woman from having an abortion but merely delays the process a mere 24 hours. This is not overbearing. There are few medical procedures (if any) that you can just walk in and get the procedure done on the spot. The resolution says that the law is "unjust" and Con has the burden of proof to prove it as thus. The abortion standards say that you cannot put "undue burden" upon the mother but this law is hardly a burden. Signing a paper, looking at your baby and waiting a day is far from undue burden. 1b) Again, since none of these things place undue burden on the mother they are legal. The information presented stays between the mother and the doctor and in no way violate the privacy of any sort of decision. The decision is still the mother's alone to make. Presenting information does not violate the right to privacy and since the doctor cannot give their opinion (in fact they're willing to abort your baby so that's a strong indication of how they feel about it) the decision should go unharrassed. The mother has sole power to decide whether or not to go through with the operation, I see no unjust piece to this. This is merely informing the mother of what she is aborting. If McDonalds has to tell you somewhere what you're eating, why can't the hospital tell you what you're aborting? C2) This argument is complete fallacy. You can get information about cigarettes on the Internet too yet they still must post a Surgeon General's Warning on ever pack. Food is required to tell you what goes into producing it even though I can probably Google what goes into a can of Coke. There are plenty of areas the government is required to tell you what you're doing, what you're eating, the risks involved etc. This is just another example of that and saying that you can look it up on the Internet is foolish. Coke telling me how many calories I'm drinking isn't a violation of privacy nor can you take that away merely because I can look the information up myself. C3)Again, this argument is foolish. If I want to get my colon cancer checked out it's a safe bet I'll need a colonoscopy and yet your argument says I can get colon surgery without the colonoscopy merely because the colonoscopy might pose a threat to my health and cause discomfort. "Ultrasound imaging has been in standard medical practice for well over fifty years, and its record of safety has never been challenged." - Straight from your post. Ultrasound imaging is harmless and this is weak attempt to try to prove a LAW to be UNJUST based on DISCOMFORT.ArgumentPlanned Parenthood v. Casey"At the same time, the court significantly modified the three-tiered framework that Roe had created. First, under Casey states could now regulate abortion during the entire period before fetal viability, and they could do so for reasons other than to protect the health of the mother. The court also dismantled Roe's prohibition on the regulation of abortion during the first trimester (Blackmun's first tier) and its limitation of regulation between the end of the first trimester and the point of fetal viability (Blackmun's second tier). The result was that a state's interest in and regulation of potential life could now arguably extend throughout a woman's pregnancy. In addition, the court in Casey also established a less rigorous standard for determining whether state abortion laws are constitutional. In Roev. Wade, the court had declared access to abortion to be a fundamental right and had determined that states could only regulate abortion (before fetal viability) if there was a "compelling state interest." Thus, subsequent abortion statutes had been evaluated under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the most rigorous legal standard for determining whether a law passes constitutional muster. As a result, in the years immediately followingRoe, many abortion regulations were declared unconstitutional. But in Casey the court replaced strict scrutiny with a new and less rigorous "undue burden" standard. Under the new standard, regulating abortion before the point of fetal viability would be deemed unconstitutional only if it imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy."All of your arguments came up in this court case in which the right to an abortion was upheld but the states were given the right to regulate the process to a certain point. This case upheld many similar provisions in a PA law in the 1980's and asserted, while overturning stricter previous limitations, that an abortion can be regulated only if the regulations put "undue burden" on the mother. However, since the information being provided comes straight from the mother's womb, is shared only between the mother and the doctor using a "standard medical procedure" accompanied by a mere 24 hour waiting period, this law violates nothing set down by the Supreme Court and in fact regulations like these were upheld by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.The mother can still choose to have an abortion on her own and get the same abortion she would have gotten before this new law was implemented therefore no undue burden has been placed on the mother. Thus, in concurrence with the resolution, this new PA law is Constitutional and therefore is just.Thank you.[1] http://www.pewforum.org...[2] http://www.oyez.org...