Scott Signs Abortion Ultrasound, Parental Notice Bills

June 25, 2011

A year after former Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed a similar proposal, Gov. Rick Scott late Friday signed a bill that will require ultrasounds before women can receive abortions.

Scott also approved a bill aimed at tightening the state law that requires parents to be notified before their minor daughters can have abortions.

Scott signed both controversial bills quietly, with his office notifying reporters after 7 p.m.

One bill will require ultrasounds before women can have first-trimester abortions, a requirement that is already in place for later-term abortions. Women will have to sign forms if they do not want to see the fetal images or hear descriptions. Supporters said the bill will ensure that women receive needed information — and could lead some to forgo abortions. But opponents said the requirement is government interference in the relationship between doctors and patients.

The parental-notice measure seeks to tighten restrictions on what is known as judicial “bypass.”  That process allows minors to seek court approval for abortions without their parents being notified.

By The News Service of Florida


22 Responses to “Scott Signs Abortion Ultrasound, Parental Notice Bills”

  1. mother of two on December 7th, 2011 3:18 pm

    i agree with this bill,because there is alot of young girls having abortions and noone knows, but the young girls are not thinking about what that does to their minds,body. sure at the time it seems to be the right thing to do but later in life you will wonder how that child would be today if you had kept the child. then again there is alot of single and couple parents who want children and cant have any of their own that would be more than happy to adopt a child instread of abortion ,i also understand it is your body and you should be able to do what ever with it but when you get pregnant stop and think of the child,tell your parents you think that want help,your wrong cause thats a part of you and their grandchild

  2. billy on June 28th, 2011 6:33 pm

    Good job Scott. Thanks.

  3. Hismae on June 28th, 2011 11:49 am

    I think anything that can get the mother to think about what she is doing before she does it is a step in the right direction. Someone needs to be a voice for the unborn. I think it is great that Governor Scott signed the bill. I just look forward to the day that abortion is altogether illegal. We need to stand up and be a voice for the unborn. The only thing that is going to change anything is our prayers and not being silent. Jesus, I plead your blood over my sins and the sins of my nation. God, End abortion and send revival to America.

  4. shelbi on June 27th, 2011 4:38 pm

    @safe bear:

    Wow, way to be harsh? The only safe sex is no sex, but don’t forget it is possible for a woman to still get pregnant using contraceptives! There are women out there who may not can care for a child or doesn’t have the money to care for a child, who get pregnant mistakingly.

    OAN: I think cracking down on being notified prior to the abortion is great! And I would hope a women could choose to have the ultrasound. That isn’t just taking our rights away!

  5. safebear on June 27th, 2011 3:58 pm

    Planned or not, if you can’t afford the baby, don’t get pregnant. The baby is another mouth taxpayers will have to feed.

    I guess the governor had to do something with all the money he’s saving the state (LOL) so now he’ll spend it paying for ultrasounds for the mothers who can’t pay for them.

    I think it makes more sense to require the doctors to suggest it and if the mother wants it then do it, if she don’t want it sign the paper and save us a few bucks.

    I think it was really chicken the way he signed the bill too…..and I thougth politicians were honest….silly me.

  6. D.W. on June 27th, 2011 11:46 am

    Puzzled- Not sure if you meant it this way but just because women are Medicaid recipients doesnt mean that they dont want their child. I as a medicaid recipient had a planned pregnancy but am not married, Yet. Medicaid helped out with all of the Dr’s bills I couldnt afford…who has $2,000 laying around to pay out all at once for all of the medical bills associated with a pregnancy.

  7. molino jim on June 26th, 2011 4:05 pm

    JTT- As “Dad” said, it was wonderful what your folks did. I have an adopted child so I have strong feelings on the subject. Where I have heart burn is with the “right to Life” people who have not adopted. There are 6,349 kids in foster care in Florida, 113,280 in the U.S. I fail to understand how this law is going to change most minds. I fear there will be more back alley abortions. As “CYNIC” said, the testing companies will make a nice profit from this—along with the drug urine test that Scott mandated just a short time ago. Scott came from a medical field—I have to wonder if he is a heavy stock holder in drug testing companies?

  8. Cynic on June 26th, 2011 1:40 pm

    So I wonder what big medical technology company is going to make MILLIONS on these mandatory ultrasounds. I have a hard time believing this is a moral initiative because if that were the case, they would be required to view the ultrasound as well. Someone is going to make money on it under the pretense of moral legislation.

    I don’t mind the parental consent — but I worry about children who are abused or neglected by a parent. Suppose the father is molesting the child? What if the mother pimped her kid for a bigger welfare check. It happens. Either way, the young lady is in for some misery.

  9. amanda on June 26th, 2011 8:11 am

    @ huh…maybe those women should just keep their legs closed or get their tubes tied!! sounds like a better idea to me than to KILL an innocent baby cause they “just cant take care of it.”

  10. Puzzled on June 26th, 2011 6:52 am

    While Gov. Scott and the legislature are requiring women to have an ultrasound, would it not make sense to require the mother’s on welfare to have a Norplant until they can support their existing children? Also, men that are deadbeat dad’s should be be required to get a vasectomy.

    To the anti-abortion believer’s, I applaud you if you adopt, or foster an unwanted child. However, in seat of Escambia County Alabama, the average is 30 births per month and virtually all of the mother’s are Medicaid receipients.

    If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, wouldn’t some of the time, money, and legislative action be better spent on preventing unwanted pregnancies to begin with?

  11. dad on June 26th, 2011 4:23 am

    jtt your experience is wonderful. However, it is not common unfortunately.

  12. huh on June 25th, 2011 11:49 pm

    Its just taking away womens rights, of course they know its alive. But thats not really relevant to the problem.

    People are strange creatures, when a women has 5 kids and is on welfare everyone gets mad , when a women takes birth control people say its not natural. When a women decides to have an abortion because she can’t support the kid , then everyone is mad about it.

    To all these people that get mad, maybe you should legally agree to take these womens kids yourself. You can’t have it all

  13. jtt on June 25th, 2011 6:49 pm

    molino jim – In answer to your question, my parents adopted a group of siblings and they are firm right-to-life believers. My cousin and his wife also adopted a girl from a teenager who couldn’t raise her, but she thankfully didn’t want to abort her either and was glad to find parents for her.

    Pro-life believers also helped to save the life of a boy who was going to be aborted because a test said he’d have Down Syndrome. After two other couples and my own parents offered to adopt him if he was born disabled, his parents agreed to not to abort him. Guess what? The test was WRONG and they are forever grateful they did not kill their healthy baby.

    In my experience, anti-abortion believers are MORE likely to adopt children.

  14. Joe on June 25th, 2011 4:47 pm

    Well said Mr. Jim

  15. Bob on June 25th, 2011 4:44 pm

    Being required to have an ultrasound before the abortion will inform the woman that there is something living within her womb if she chooses to view it. It is not just a blob of tissue or not alive. The rush to the termination of pregnancy will be slowed and some thought about what is actually about to happen will result.

    If the woman refuses to look at what is in her womb, she is admitting to not wanting to know what is in her womb or not caring.

    After the abortion, the woman who does view the ultrasound can not say that she did not know what was in her womb and be suprised that it was a living human being instead of a blob.

    This bill will add gravitas to the abortion decision, will give women additional information before having a life changing and irreversible abortion. It will save many lives.

    Hopefully a waiting period can be added to this law that will give a woman more time to consider the facts.

  16. Regretfulmistake on June 25th, 2011 2:45 pm

    I had abortion 16 years ago, that I regret. It was in Pensacola and I was not far along in the pregnancy. I had to have a ultrasound then. They told me it was the law. Was it or was it not?

  17. molino jim on June 25th, 2011 1:50 pm

    Roy–you are right , will the woman go to jail for saying no to an ultrasound. This should be only a decision between the doctor and the woman and her God. I’ve seen to many unwanted babies mistreated because the mother could or would not take care of them. I know that some people think that every baby given up for adoption finds a home (I know that’s a false assumption). There are babies in this country who need a loving home—but people will go to Europe or China to get a child “because it’s the right thing to do” or “it’s the IN thing to do”. I have to question how many “right to life” people have an adopted child or help to support an adoption agency?

  18. fed up on June 25th, 2011 1:27 pm

    Give babies the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  19. Roy on June 25th, 2011 1:16 pm

    What happens to a woman who signs a paper not to view the images or sounds, but also refuses to be subjected to the ultrasound? Would they be forced to undergo the procedure ? Will the women face jail time?

  20. LULU on June 25th, 2011 9:33 am

    Sounds like a good idea to me. If only 1 person looks at the ultra sound and changes her mind, that’s a life saved and that makes it worth it.

  21. Bobby V. on June 25th, 2011 7:32 am

    Taking a look at things is great but my understanding is if the woman signs the form the only person taking a look is the Doctor.

    “Women will have to sign forms if they do not want to see the fetal images or hear descriptions.”

    What good does it do to force the ultrasound if they don’t even have to look at it or acknowledge it? Just another waste brought on by good ole Rick (W.) Scott. Let’s how how deep the rabbit hole goes.

  22. 429SCJ on June 25th, 2011 6:41 am

    It never hurts to take a look at things, before you make a final decision.