Rhode Island Rep. Karen MacBeth responded to my e-mail to the House Judiciary and the co-sponsors of the fetal ultrasound bill. She quotes my message, and the reply I sent today follows.

To: jmcdaid@torvex.com
Subject: Re: Please oppose H7205
From: Karen Macbeth «macbethkaren@aol.com»

John,
I am the prime sponsor of the bill and am in complete support of the bill.
Do you realize that an ultrasound is done over 99% of the time before an abortion is performed so therefor is not a medically unnecessary test?
The woman can choose to not look at it. She is given the option to look at it.
This legislation is pro-information and pro-woman and I suggest you do further research as you don't seem to understand the intent nor what is already done.
Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: John McDaid
To: rep-tarro ; rep-macbeth .state.ri.us>; rep-mclaughlin
Sent: Sat, Mar 10, 2012 5:33 pm
Subject: Fwd: Please oppose H7205

Madam Chair, members of the House Judiciary:
The proposed House bill 7205 adds a medically unnecessary ultrasound to
informed consent for abortion and I urge you to oppose any effort to
move this legislation forward.

Whatever you think of abortion, the state has no place stepping between
a doctor and patient to require a medically unnecessary test accompanied
by a graphic description.

I urge you to respect the right of women to appropriate health care and
stop this bill.

Thank you for your consideration, and for your service to our state.
Best Regards.
-John McDaid

Here's the response I sent this afternoon.

Dear Rep. MacBeth...
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond. I respect your service to the people of Rhode Island, and I appreciate your perspective. However, I feel the need to respond.

First, it does not follow logically to say that because something is done 99% of the time for medically valid reasons (fetal measurement, rule out ectopic pregnancy, etc.) that therefore the government has the authority to compel it for non-medical reasons.

Second, while it is true that your bill does not require the woman to view the ultrasound, the very fact that it is performed is an intrusion of the state into the doctor-patient relationship. And although the woman is not required to view the results, she is compelled by the language in your bill to hear a detailed verbal description of what the ultrasound shows, including the "dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of external members and internal organs." If you are justifying the use of ultrasound on medical grounds, please explain to me the *medical* significance of this requirement.

Third, while our definition of terms may differ, to my mind being "pro-information" and "pro-woman" requires a respect for the right a woman has over her own body. To say that she *must* have a test, or *must* receive some information, you will need to prove that the state has a compelling interest which outweighs her rights.

Finally, just a word of advice. It is almost never a good idea for a politician to lecture a voter. I am actually fairly familiar with the science around ultrasounds and with their use in medicine, and I can see no valid reason for requiring them in this fashion. More research, I fear, will not alter my conclusion that the aim of this legislation is to insert the state between a woman and her doctor.

While I am not your constituent, this legislation would negatively impact women in Portsmouth, and I ask you once again to please reconsider the wisdom of this proposal.

Thank you again for your service in our legislature, and for taking the time to respond.

Best Regards.
--John G. McDaid

Full disclosure: I was against the bill before I received Rep. MacBeth's reply, and she has offered no compelling evidence which would make me change my mind.

Legislation mandating ultrasound exams before abortion has been popping up in state houses around the US, and Rhode Island is no exception: Portsmouth representative Dan Reilly (R-72) is one of the co-sponsors of H7205, which would require medical staff to perform an unnecessary ultrasound, describe what it shows, and display it so that the woman can see it. This bill slips new language into the existing informed consent requirement.

Although the description is specified in graphic detail ("[A] medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable") at least health care providers are not required to pry open their patient's eyes Clockwork Orange style. ("Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a woman to view the ultrasound images. Neither the physician nor the woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.")

How nice of Doctor Dan. He only supports a medically unnecessary procedure, but stops short of requiring the patient to actually view the result. I'm frankly embarrased that a representative from Portsmouth is involved in this kind of intrusive bill. Whatever you think about abortion, decisions about health care should be the domain of doctors and patients, and the government has no place here.

This is the busy season for our legislature, and there are hundreds of bills in the hopper, but let's not let this one slide by unnoticed.

The sponsors of the legislation are Karen MacBeth, James McLaughlin, Arthur Corvese, Gregory Schadone and Reilly. Here are their e-mails: rep-macbeth@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-mclaughlin@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-corvese@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-schadone@rilin.state.ri.us, and rep-reilly@rilin.state.ri.us.

The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee (you can track any progress here) and here are the e-mails for the committee, starting with Chair Edith H. Ajello: rep-ajello@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-blazejewski@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-brien@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-chippendale@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-costa@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-desimone@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-flaherty@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-lally@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-lima@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-marcello@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-martin@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-morrison@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-oneill@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-tarro@rilin.state.ri.us

You need to break up the addresses, because the state house spam filter won't let you send an e-mail to the entire committee at one time. How helpful is that?

You might also drop courtesy copies to Portsmouth's other Reps, depending where in town you live: Ray Gallison (69) rep-gallison@rilin.state.ri.us, Jay Edwards (70) rep-edwards@rilin.state.ri.us, or Dan Gordon (71) rep-gordon@rilin.state.ri.us.

Full disclosure: I am a supporter of Planned Parenthood. And I plan to make a donation to them, and to whoever is running against Dan Reilly.