Christian Versus Christian on Ultrasound Law

In this past Sunday’s Florida Today editorial page “letters to the editor”, there was an interesting juxtaposition of letters taking radically different sides on the debate in Florida over an Ultrasound requirement for women seeking abortions.  The bill is currently awaiting Gov. Charlie Crist’s signature- which is anything but guaranteed.

I am one of the writers who posted a letter opposing the Florida Today’s editorial which condemned the Ultrasound requirement.  The other writer, Michele Paccione, is a Facebook friend, a self-described “Christian Peace Activist”, and city council member for the City of Palm Bay. I don’t have anything negative to say about Michele on a personal level, I have met and spoken briefly with her before.  I know that when I was running for State Representative as a Democrat, she and the Democratic Women’s Organizations were not pleased with my pro-Life, orthodox Catholicism. But here we are meeting up vicariously, without either or us aware of what the other was doing when we penned these letters. I think we delivered our best shots, and now it is out there for public opinion and the Holy Spirit to start moving about the city, state and nation.  I appreciate your feedback- here are the two letters- the lady goes first:

Subjecting women to
ultrasound ‘a travesty’

I would like to ask our state representatives, especially the males, why do you insist on pushing your personal and religious views on women in Florida?

Why do women seeking an abortion, who have the right to their privacy and the right to a legal medical procedure, have to be subjected to an ultrasound and be required to pay for it?

Of course, you say, the ultrasound can be waived in the case of incest, rape or domestic violence, but what a tragedy to have to prove that to the doctor. Let me ask you a simple question: Do you really care about women?

These are your moms, your sisters, daughters and friends. If you care about women, help them with job opportunities, give them access to health care, affordable child care and access to education about birth control. Give them resources to make better decisions and never be put into that heartbreaking situation.

I am saddened and disappointed by the decisions being made in Tallahassee. I urge Gov. Crist to veto HB 1143 and give women the choice to make decisions about their bodies. To subject them to this procedure is a travesty. This takes the medical decision away from the woman and her doctor.
Michele Paccione

Palm Bay
Palm Bay city councilwoman

Options to abortion
must be considered

I am saddened by FLORIDA TODAY’s rejection in its editorial, “Veto this bill,” of the ultrasound provision for women seeking abortions in House Bill 1143.

I’m not upset over the legitimate concerns we all must have for women living in poverty, and especially those who are already mothers with children and are not making ends meet.

I am totally supportive of resources being redirected to help every working family obtain a family wage. The Catholic Church has recommended more family subsidies and even remuneration for the domestic work of moms or dads who are staying home to raise their children.

The glaring problem with FLORIDA TODAY’s reasoning, and all pro-choice advocacy, is in the person who is completely overlooked by their beliefs — the unwanted, unborn child. If you really care about poor, vulnerable women in difficult circumstances of pregnancy, you don’t talk about abortion.

If we can agree that a genetically unique human life begins when one is pregnant, then we need to respect that fact and move the discussion to how we are going to welcome that child into our world and help the moms (and dads) who are charged with this tremendous responsibility.

It may be agreed that adoption is best for all concerned. Abortion is wrong because it kills the innocent child. Who can support that?
Tim Shipe

West Melbourne

5 Responses to Christian Versus Christian on Ultrasound Law

  1. stefan says:

    Abortion is against Christian beliefs
    God is my King!

  2. I think you expressed yourself well here.

    Michele strikes me has having an inherent contradiction in her argument: She urges men supporting the measure to consider that “These are your moms, your sisters, daughters and friends”. This seems based on the misapprehension that pro-lifers would want their relatives to be able to receive abortions without fuss. The whole point is that we don’t want people to get abortions — both because we believe it’s wrong (being the killing of an innocent person) and because we believe it hurts the mother, morally and emotionally. As such, suggesting to us that this would inconvenience our female friends or relatives is no counterargument, since we don’t want them getting abortions either.

  3. Eric Brown says:

    Good points Tim. I pray Governor Crist doesn’t veto the legislation. I’m also glad to see Florida Democrats for Life really behind this bill.

  4. Elaine Krewer says:

    “Why do women seeking an abortion, who have the right to their privacy and the right to a legal medical procedure, have to be subjected to an ultrasound and be required to pay for it”

    “Subjected” to an ultrasound? She makes it sound like these poor women are being forced to endure some horrendous torture, when just about any woman who has had kids knows that the ultrasound is usually one of the LEAST invasive and/or uncomfortable procedures performed during pregnancy.

    And even being “subjected” to a transvaginal ultrasound — the type that would be performed very early in the pregnancy before the baby became large enough to be seen via abdominal ultrasound — could hardly be any more invasive or painful than being subjected to a surgical abortion, wouldn’t you think?

  5. Eric Brown says:

    I think her point is even further nullified by the fact that it is quite typical for an abortion doctor to give a woman an ultrasound (with the screen facing away from her) to view the unborn child to determine its age and point of development in order to decide what particular abortion procedure is most appropriate to terminate the child at whatever its stage.

    Ultrasound laws require that they simply offer to turn the screen — the horror!

%d bloggers like this: