• Home
  • :
  • :
  • Member Center
  • :
  • Make This Your Home Page
  • :
  • Special Offers


South Carolina News

Classifieds
Enter name or type of business

Enter city & state, or zip code

Vote on compromise ultrasound abortion bill delayed

07:59 AM EDT on Wednesday, June 6, 2007

By SEANNA ADCOX / Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- South Carolina legislators postponed a vote Tuesday on whether a woman seeking an abortion should be required to review an ultrasound image of their fetus.

While the House version of the bill, approved in March, would mandate an ultrasound before every abortion and require a doctor show the woman the image, the Senate approved a version last month saying women must be given the option to view it.

A six-member conference committee made no progress Tuesday on the differences but agreed to meet again should the Legislature return for a limited session later this month.

The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. Greg Delleney, said he won't budge much. Abortion bills don't come up in the General Assembly very often because they're so controversial, he said.

"This is an opportunity I don't want to miss," the Chester Republican said. "I won't sell out for something that's not effective."

Abortion clinics already perform ultrasounds to verify the age of the fetus, so ordering doctors to show women the pictures shouldn't be a problem, Delleney said. Also, a clause added by the House two weeks ago saying a woman can't be required to view the images against her should help the bill pass a legal test.

But Sen. Mike Fair said requiring a doctor to review the image with the woman is still legally questionable. The House bill also does not test the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal, the Greenville Republican said.

Fair, who led a panel that drafted the Senate version, said the House bill would only invite lawsuits and delay women from being able to view the images, which could make some of them decide to keep their child or opt for adoption instead of an abortion.

"We'll have 3- and 4-year-olds walking around rather than a test case that's not heading anywhere," Fair said.