I downloaded the podcast from NPR's discussion on Tell Me More with Sid Miller from about a week ago and listened to it just now. Miller says that the reason for the bill was that women who were getting abortions and had sonograms were not allowed to see the sonograms.

Rough transcription: We took hours and hours of testimony in committee and repeatedly women told us even though they had a sonogram performed and that they had paid for that and many of them had requested to view the sonogram, they were denied that right.

Let's just say that is 1 in some cases. First, I would assume it would not be a universal situation but probably a policy of the clinic that is performing the abortion. Miller said a number of women testified that they weren't allowed to see the sonogram. Shouldn't the bill, then, have been to set a policy that if a woman WANTED TO SEE THE SONOGRAM, she would be permitted to? Instead of FORCING women who may not want to to look at the sonogram or hear it described?

How baloney is THAT excuse. It's exactly the flip side of what is offensive about this bill. I understand that there may be women who wish to see the MANDATORY sonagram THAT THEY HAVE PAID FOR and, if denied, that's a travesty. But to FORCE women into looking or, if they won't look, to have to hear what the physician decides to tell them about what the sonogram shows is ridiculous.

Miller also says this is part of informed consent that you have with medical procedures. Um. I have never been in a situation where I had something medically done where I was forced to look at the Xray or hear it described. Never. Someone in the medical field inform me- is this a regular part of informed consent, where someone has to look at an Xray or sonogram OR is forced to sit and listen to the physician describe the procedure in lieu of say, a brochure? Suppose I go to get my teeth worked on and xrays are taken-am I required to look at the xrays before I can be treated?

Again, let's say I have a cavity in my teeth and an xtray shows that X tooth needs to be drilled. First, I have chosen to go to the dentist. I can get up and walk out or postpone getting my teeth drilled, but it's entirely my choice. I don't have to wait another day to think it over, because the dentist is treating me as an adult. The situation is even more like this: Suppose I KNOW which tooth is bothering me, the filling has come out, and an Xray would only benefit the dentist to know how far to drill. I don't need to hear or see the xray described in order to, right then and there, get done what I, as an adult, would like to get done. On the other hand, if I'm paying for the xray, and I WANT TO SEE IT, I shouldn't be denied by the dentist; but that's not forcing me to view it if I do not want to.

If this is not the case, and someone associated with the medical field can tell me that for all medical procedures, part of informed consent requires that, when xrays or sonograms are taken, the patients MUST look at them or hear them described, then please say so, along with a link to the state or federal law that requires that.

Miller and the Texas Republicans and handful of Texas Democrats who voted for this are way out of line, for other reasons we've stated before. But the baloney excuse that Miller made in the radio interview again treats people as if they aren't capable of following a logical argument. One hopes it isn't because Miller doesn't even understand this.