Source from washingtonpost (I can't post links yet apparently as I'm new here) said this: "Ron Paul likes limited government interference yet supports state-mandated sonograms"
I'm hoping someone can help me to understand this better as there's only one main source (above) I've encountered that talks about Ron's stance on this subject. Recently Virginia signed into law to have the transvaginal probe as a requirement for women seeking an abortion. Previously these were used to check up on possible irregularities of the reproductive system, sometimes for pregnant women wanting to make sure everything's alright.
Now, if I understand correctly, there was already a mandate in most states to use at least some kind of ultrasound before performing that kind of medical procedure, so that it can be performed as safely as possible. Am I correct? Just that until recently, most abortion clinics would not show images of the ultrasound to the patients, for whatever reasons.
The reasons that have been brought up to require the use this transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion are to due allowing for more safety and due to informed consent. The woman should have a clear idea of the procedure being performed on her, and on the fetus. Though Texas has taken it further and wants to require doctors to show the images of the ultrasound and describe the features of the fetus to the patient. I'm not so sure about that, mainly because it seems reasonable (even though I don't consider abortions to be reasonable) to allow the woman to opt out as opposed to forcing her to look at images and forcing doctors to speak about something that they may not wish to discuss. Plus, again, this ultrasound IS invasive.
But the source claiming that "Ron Paul likes limited government interference yet wants states to mandate a sonogram"only uses the word "sonogram" ... I assume they refer to the transvaginal ultrasound, but that's not entirely clear to me. It seems possible that he's only referring to a regular ultrasound. I have a hard time imagining him supporting something so literally forceful and invasive... as bad as abortion may be. This would only pile one crime on another.
If Ron Paul does support this, what do you make of it? It doesn't seem hypocritical of him in the sense that he still wants to leave these issues to the states. But there's the lingering notion in my head that he would sign to pass the invasive sonogram in his own state (which isn't immediately troubling to me as I live in Florida) and that sort of lessens my view of him. I still believe overwhelmingly that this country needs Ron Paul and needs to hear the ideals he voices, which reflect not only consistency but a strong moral compass. What are your thoughts about his stance on the issue?