The Indianapolis Star reports:
Women obtaining an abortion-inducing drug would be required to undergo an ultrasound before and after taking the drug under a bill approved Wednesday by an Indiana Senate committee.
Though the bill doesn’t specify that it be a transvaginal ultrasound, in which a several-inch-long probe is inserted in the woman, that’s exactly what Indiana would be requiring, said Dr. John Stutsman, an Indiana University School of Medicine professor and obstetrician-gynecologist.
The provision is included in Senate Bill 371, which also would require any clinic that dispenses the drug — known as RU-486 — to meet the same requirements as a clinic that performs surgical abortions, though physicians’ offices would be exempt.
Those requirements, opponents say, potentially would force the Planned Parenthood clinic in Lafayette to close. That clinic offers the abortion pill but does not perform surgical abortions. If the bill passes, the clinic would have to widen hallways and doorways to meet state specifications for surgery and install anesthesia, surgical and sterilization equipment.
Sen. Travis Holdman, the Markle Republican who authored the bill, said the measure is intended to ensure women’s safety. Pushing back against senators who questioned why the heightened standards applied only to RU-486 and not to other prescription medicines dispensed in clinics, Holdman said abortion is different…
And yes, that’s a non-sequitur.
There’s an interesting parallel between abortion rights and gun rights. The supreme court has ruled that both rights are constitutionally protected, but the political groups that oppose them are doing everything they can to enact new restrictions and red tape to make exercising those rights as difficult as possible.
The difference is one is a pretty straightforward consequence of one of the amendments, and the other is, quoth the inimitable Mr. Douglas, a “penumbra.” You could list it under the 10th Amendment, I suppose, but we’ve sidestepped that one on so many other issues I don’t think anyone, left or right, could consistently use it as a justification for abortion rights.
I support (reasonable) abortion rights as a matter of public policy, but I don’t think there’s any constitutional guarantee. I doubt you could find anyone to say the same for gun rights.