Abortion ultrasound bill fails on a tie vote

Left- Senator Daniel Webster-R, Winter Garden, reacts to the 20-20 tie vote on his abortion bill in the Senate, Wednesday. His bill was defeated. Scott Keeler | Times
The vote was a stunning rebuke for the bill's sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Dan Webster, R-Winter Garden, who's in the final week of an impressive 28-year legislative career. The decision also spares Gov. Charlie Crist a politically tough decision of whether to sign or veto the bill (SB 2400). The self-described "live and let live" governor has not said what he would have done, at a time when he is mentioned as a possible vice presidential pick.
The floor debate on both sides was among the most emotional and eloquent of the session, as Webster spoke of a woman overseas who had pregancy complications but refused to abort a fetus -- who became Heisman-trophy winning quarterback Tim Tebow at the University of Florida.
A supporter, Sen. Ronda Storms (left), R-Brandon, wondered why opponents didn't want pregnant women to "see that little baby sucking his thumb," and Sen. Alex Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, said the ultrasound is simply one more piece of information. "God forbid a woman may change her mind," he said.
Seven Republicans voted no: Mike Bennett, Lisa Carlton, Paula Dockery, Dennis Jones, Jim King, Evelyn Lynn and Burt Saunders. Democrat Gary Siplin voted yes.
"Unless we ovulate," King said, "we have no place making decisions affecting women's reproductive rights." He said the bill, with its ultrasound provision, tramples on the Republican Party principle of "less government, more freedom."
Several opponents said the bill interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. They also cited the Legislature's decision to eliminate adoption subsidies in a tight budget year, which will make it harder for unwanted foster children to be placed with families. "From the looks of our budget, we can't seem to afford the children we already have," said Sen. Mandy Dawson, D-Fort Lauderdale.

RE: April 30, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I could not have said it better myself!
Posted by: Amy | April 30, 2008 at 02:40 PM
2:31 - Yes, it was.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ART_HOAX?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 02:40 PM
My grandma used to say, take all the babies that would have been born if abortion were illegal, put them on the steps of the capital and let the MEN figure out how to raise 'em! Stupid men, want their fun and then try to force the repercussion on someone else.
Posted by: keep your laws off my body | April 30, 2008 at 02:41 PM
YAY!
Posted by: Rene | April 30, 2008 at 02:43 PM
2:41 Thinks Rhonda Storms is a man.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 02:44 PM
I had an abortion. The facility I chose did an ultrasound to verify the age of the embryo, I asked to see it, much to the surprise of the technologist. Guess what, it didn't change my mind. I believe for 99 percent of the women, it won't matter.
By the way, can we put through a bill requiring abortion protestors to adopt an unwanted child?
Posted by: Alejandra | April 30, 2008 at 02:44 PM
It IS an urban myth, or hoax, or whatever you want to call it. Check tthe newer google stories.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 02:50 PM
I am so glad this didn't pass. Having an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions a person can make. To be forced to have an ultrasound, within an unfunded mandate, would only make a very challenging decision even more agonizing. LEAVE OUR BODIES OUT OF POLITICS. Find a real issue to grip about.
Posted by: Erie | April 30, 2008 at 03:03 PM
I am sick of hearing from all of the so called righteous people who claim that abortion is murder. Yet when it comes to supporting these children they speak foully of those who seek welfare assistance. You stupid people have no idea what a woman goes through when she makes this very private and personal decision. If you really care so much about children, then adopt a couple of dozen and give them a decent life; I know you won't unless they are lily white like yourselves. You are a bunch of hypocrites who don't deserve the right so speak at all. You don't want contraception to be taught in schools; yet you don't want abortions. May the Lord and True God Lucifer have pity upon your souls in his house; for you are forever dammed for your sins. Greedy scum all of you!
Posted by: Tom | April 30, 2008 at 03:08 PM
I thought an "ultrasound" was what you got when you bought that new BOSE system!
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 03:29 PM
I think Rhonda Storms is hot... girly-girl got back!
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 03:31 PM
It is interesting that no one has responded to the point 1:32 makes.
This is not just a womens issue, it is a societal issue. Amazing how hypocritical the pro-abortion side is on this aspect of the issue.
If we are going to have a society of Murphy Browns and chidren who do not take their fathers last name then for goodness sakes square the circle and do away with the antiquated notion of child support.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 03:32 PM
2:14 Careful, you are mocking God. Eternity is forever, this life is the blink of an eye. God has the last word on anyone's actions including holding those accountable for the loss of life which could have been prevented.
The road to you know where is paved with good intentions,compromises and lack of convictions.
But the road to Eternal life in narrow.
Senator Webster did the right thing, He's honorable, a statesman and gave the bill his best shot. Way to go Dan, thanks for your leadership and moral courage.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 03:33 PM
"Unless we ovulate," King said, "we have no place making decisions affecting women's reproductive rights."
---------------------
Finally, someone with half a brain is in Tallahassee. Our bodies, our choice. Plain and simple.
And I have to agree with Tom at 3:08pm. Unless you "conservatives" plan on raising those unable-to-be-cared for children yourselves, shut up!
Posted by: A.H. | April 30, 2008 at 03:39 PM
3:39 - okay if it's your choice to abort - then what happens if you choose NOT to abort and the father wanted you too, is he still forced to have to pay child support? seems like the women win on every angle of this issue
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 03:42 PM
We should have stopped them at burning bras!
Great, you burned your bra... not get in the damn kitchen and make me a sandwich. And bring me a beer while you're at it, the game's on... AND DO SOME DAMN LAUNDRY TOO!
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 03:46 PM
Steve,
The vote was a "stunning rebuke;" can you cloak your objecitvely a little more?
What? The regular Democrats (posing as Republicans) voted with the Democrats again what a surprise, NOT!
And Steve, if we're in such a tough budget year why are we having another Global Warming Summit in Miami?
Maybe Arnold Schwarzennegar will speak again and bring some of his friends from Communist China and the U.N. to reach out to us.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 03:51 PM
I thought "Global Warming" was gay code for t-bagging!
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 03:53 PM
Why are there those who insist on this "don't tell me what to do with my body" or "anyone without a uterus should not have a say in the matter"? That is a pathetic juvenille approach. Once a life is terminated there are no other postitive options for the unborn child who will have to endure the physical pain of the abortion and have its life ended. Carrying a child to term preserves many options. Men are held to financial responsibilty so they should have a say in the matter especially considering the woman picked them to have sex with. And no one is telling the woman to have sex in the first place.
For all of you who keep trying to tie abortion and less government funded social services together explain why you think that only good productive lives start out on silver platters and everyone born on one lives a quality life?
After you give up on trying to respond to that one in a reasonable manner have a go at explaining why you think the government should stand in place of parents to provide the necessities of life for children.
Don't stop swinging yet you only have two strikes. How can two people representing themselves as mature enough to participate in sexual behavior justify not preventing pregnancy or accepting responsibility for it in a way that does not demonstrate a devalued sense humanity?
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Answer me this, 3:59… spermatozoa is a living organism… why not make it illegal to self-serve?
Don’t laugh; I’m totally serious. If it’s all about life, then why not “all” levels of life?
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 04:06 PM
... anyone... anyone... Bueller... Bueller... Bueller...
... logic always kills the freaks.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 04:31 PM
4:31 - well, what 4:06 stated hardly counts as logic - a sperm is not a human life, an egg is not a human life, neither individually contains the DNA to call it a human life - but i don't have time for a biology lesson for you
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 04:40 PM
It sounds like a lot of men blogging here! Ok here I go from my womanly perspective....
I have to admit that I have had several friends who have had abortions, many during their college years. For the most part all of them were under 12 weeks and still had a sonogram performed. Most clinics already factor in the cost of a sonogram with an abortion before and after 12 weeks. Back then it was about $350. If I were to have an abortion I would feel more comfortable knowing that the physician is taking the proper steps necessary to determine the best method (out of 3) to perform. To me this would ensure high standards are in place in the medical field. I believe if our legislators approached it more from a medical perspective it would have gained more support.
For example:
1 - What if I had a tubal (ectopic) pregnancy, sometimes undetected until 8 weeks? If the doctor failed to perform a sonogram and went on to perform an abortion I would be headed to the ER later on for surgery....thus wasting my time and money.
2 - What if I was unaware of my last menstrual cycle, which helps calculate the gestation period (many women have irregular cycles) or if lied about the date because I did not want my boyfriend to figure out I cheated? If the doctor failed to perform a sonogram not knowing I could be past 12 weeks & performed a suction aspiration rather than a D&C or D&E I would be headed to the ER for hemorrhaging in which they would have to complete the procedure.
3 - Each pregnancy is different. The early stages of a 2nd pregnancy tend to enlarge quicker than the first since the flexibility of the uterus. Trust me I know, I have 3 kids myself. That's why some women start showing sooner than others even though they share the same due date. So what if I was 11 weeks yet my fetus was slightly larger than the average and the doctor went ahead and performed a suction aspiration? If a sonogram were performed first the doctor would be able to determine that perhaps a more rigorous method would have been effective rather then having to go back.
4 - Has anyone done a poll asking women if they were more likely to keep a baby at 12 weeks versus 6 weeks after a sonogram was performed? In order not to interject my personal opinions I have asked several women including some of those friends who had abortions that question. Many of them explained that it would be more difficult to go through with an abortion after 12 weeks because in a sonogram the fetus begins to show more human characteristics during that stage.
With what I explained above, it is no different to extend the medical regulation from the 12th week to the 1st in order to ensure high standards and quality in the medical field.
Posted by: Bella | April 30, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Well done, 4:40… rationalization of irrational logic… so… life isn’t life, even if it moves with a purpose. Good think thing we recognizes the darkies, jews, women, and pole-smokers are humans, huh?
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 04:48 PM
4:06
I THINK I LOVE YOU!!
Posted by: John | April 30, 2008 at 04:49 PM
Is Storms pregnant?
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 04:51 PM
4:48 - 4:40 here - um, first of all there's no such thing as irrational logic - and second there are all kinds of life that are not human life
and just because it "moves with a purpose" it is not human life (that's got to be the stupidest definition of human life i've ever read) - bugs move with a purpose you gonna tell me that's a human life?
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Yeah, wrinkled old white dudes get one less chance to mess with women undergoing a really tough time in their lives.
Yes, Ron(duh) Storms was a man at one time. Look at the adam's apple.
Posted by: MarkMarsh | April 30, 2008 at 04:57 PM
4:53… 4:48 here. Lighten up, freak. I asked a reasonable question, and you retort indicates feelings of inadequacy on your part.
So if I kill the bee, before it pollinates the flower… what have I killed; the bee or the flower?
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Is that Senator Ronda Storms in the picture? Her hair-do looks similar to that of the the Mormon sect (YFZ) women out in West Texas!
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 05:19 PM
oooo oooo birds and bees time...
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 05:20 PM
Storms is the same one who doesn't want to talk about condoms in school. Why does she hate teenage girls?
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 05:30 PM
I have always liked Jim King...and the "Unless we ovulate" comment makes me like him even more.
Posted by: ginger | April 30, 2008 at 05:55 PM
Thank goodness this useless right-wing driven session is almost over...way too much on the God, Guns and Gays. Enough already, get to work fixing the real issues.
Thank goodness Rhonda is looking really fat in that picture. Maybe she will get sick and retire. Rhonda, I don't really believe in your freakish right-wing God, but I will say a prayer for you to quit anyways.
Posted by: Marc | April 30, 2008 at 06:01 PM
From what I understand, pretty much all abortions are already preceded by ultrasounds, so the proposed legislation wouldn't really have changed anything. It was just politics and had nothing to do with women's health or any desire to provide them with "information." The real issue is to what extent should our state lawmakers be legislating every detail of our lives. I think abortion should be as rare as a black swan, but this is not the way to make that happen.
Posted by: LJ | April 30, 2008 at 06:13 PM
Doing their constitutional duty and responsibility.
Kill unconstitutional legislation.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 07:25 PM
LJ how should we do it then?
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Thank you Thank you Thank you to the legislators with a brain and b a l l s. Thank you for staying out of my personal life. Thank you for freedom. This was not an abortion bill. The law of the land allows abortion, this bill was to strip more of our freedoms and does not allow us to make up our own minds about our most personal times. I am so glad that my life was not intruded upon by the likes of a Rhonda Storms. She does not believe that you can make your own decisions. She and the others like her believe it should not be about family empowerment, but instead believe that some legislator should be the one to decide what is right and wrong for you and your entire family. Sounds so much like the Middle East. Next thing you know they will have women in Burkas. Thank God there are legislators, even prolife legislators, who understand what this bill was really about. Uphold the Constitution Webster, Fasano, Storms, Alexander, Baker, Peaden, and the rest who want to intrude in my life.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 07:38 PM
I thought the comments made against this bill were great. I was cheering from my computer room. I have been at a point in my life where I thought politicians all stink. And Republicans who are thought to favor less government, have certainly been the ones to intrude the most. But after watching this debate and listening to great comments by the senators who opposed the bill, I have renewed faith. The proponents of the bill had the worst explanations for why they thought the bill was necessary. They were awful. One even said it was necessary because abortion doctors would not allow the women to have ultra sounds. This was so untrue and very lame. Rhonda Storms used a incident that was proved to be a hoax. I was proud that the bill was exposed for what it really is. Can you imagine leaving moral decisions up to some of these legislators? The public rates them so low. I dont want them deciding these things for me. I dont want them taking away my freedoms.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 07:47 PM
What did the story about the women over seas whos son grew up to be a football player have to do with this bill? This was not a ban on abortion. The same way that woman made up her mind to keep her child, we should let her and her family make up their minds. The bill subjects a woman who may even have a malformed child to have to be asked if she wants to see it. Bad bad bill
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 07:52 PM
Ronda Storms is just another extremeist who could care less about individual rights and freedoms. She does not allow others to differ on when a fetus is viable. I can respect her opinion, but she cannot accept mine or anyone elses.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 07:56 PM
Here's why Republicans want to force women to have their unwanted children then cut all programs to help them once the baby is born:
They want live babies so they can have dead soldiers.
Posted by: Heidi | April 30, 2008 at 08:12 PM
The consensus is that Storms is pregnant. That does not excuse her behavior, many of not most women continue to think clearly during pregnancy, but there are always exceptions.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Gaaawley! Gomer Tebow from Gainesville RFD is a Republican. Who woulda thunk it?
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 09:25 PM
I'm very confused, many of you, men and women alike i'm sure, sound like women, some potentially very young, shouldn't need all of the information before making what is repeatedly called such a difficult decision in such a difficult time. If they were all so "capable" regardless of age or status, why do so many end up pregnant and need to abort in the first place?
Many of you, including the Jim King's of this world, are parents. How often do you argue that your children should be able to make bad decisions without consequences or better yet, without even being told exactly what the consequences are? Once you abort, there is NO undoing the pain that you suffer for the rest of your life. Any woman that says she doesn't regret the decision to abort is trying to cover up her true feelings.
And those that use the childish "dead soldier" and "they don't care about you once you are born" logic, well, you lack any facility to truly argue with reason.
There are a dozen ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy yet you continue to defend a "woman's" right to ignore those options so long as she can clean up her mess after the fact.
And why do so many of you think that if you keep an unwanted baby it is the government's responsibility to raise it? Did your parents feel that way too? What ever happended to personal responsibility?
If just one woman changes her mind because she realizes after seeing the sonogram that her baby is real, is a human, is alive in that sonogram picture, isn't that worth the cost of every additional sonogram that taken? We know what Mandy Dawson's answer would be, but what else would you expect from a democrat from my home town? I will add you all to my prayers, your hatred is painful to read and listen to. God Bless You!
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 09:30 PM
1:54 stop twisting the truth. We all watched what took place. Dawson and King did not say it the way you twist it. They spoke the truth in saying that there are so many babies and far too few hypocrites voulnteering to help them now.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 10:15 PM
these bozos said that this bill would require a woman to receive appropriate information just as she would for any other medical procedure. they obviously weren't in the hospital with me when the dr said i needed a pacemaker, said he'd scheduled it for the next morning and started to walk out the room without giving me anymore information. what a crock!! a woman can get the info the same way i did with that doc. i stopped him, made him sit down and explain
Posted by: K_jengurl | April 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Stop the attempt to have governemnt compelled pregnancy.
Posted by: | April 30, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Is RhonDUH pregnant? Give her an ultrasound. Check her out for babies in the belly and an adam's apple.
Posted by: | May 01, 2008 at 10:58 AM
9:30 sounds like they're saying that someone who makes the bad decision that results in pregnancy should be forced to bear a child as "consequences". What kind of lie is that, when the child is considered punishment? Is that the kind of life you'd wish on someone?
And people seem to forget how many pregnancies result not from carelessness or unprotected sex, but from failed birth control.
Yes women do regret abortions, but it's better than raising an unwanted , unloved child--and don't even talk about adoption, with all the kids waiting out there and needing homes .
Posted by: | May 01, 2008 at 11:33 AM