:::It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about—although, to be fair, you're simply mirroring the ignorance and laziness evident in most journalistic coverage of this controversy. Ultrasound is routinely used during surgical abortion, although it is not mandatory for uncomplicated cases. The use of ultrasound isn't a "change in procedure"; it's an acceptable and standard component of surgical technique, and the decision to use or not use ultrasound is generally left to the discretion of the gynecologist. If journalists weren't so lazy, they'd have figured this out themselves by doing 10 seconds of research, instead of chasing quotes from Art Caplan. For instance, the standards of care from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists state that "access to ultrasound is recommended but not routinely required" for surgical abortions, and that "ultrasound is commonly used to assess the uterus during and after vacuum aspiration" ().There is no additional risk to the woman as a result of ultrasound use. If a woman indicates a wish to donate fetal tissue to research, then the use of ultrasound guidance to help fulfill that wish is entirely consistent with medical ethical principles, particularly that of autonomy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is very little interest in learning or conveying factual medical information here, and instead there's an intensely politicized ignorance at work in the rush to cynically manipulate the content of these tapes. But to return to Wikipedia-speak: no, the sources don't support the wording you've proposed. ''''''