ProgressOhio

Buckeye State Blog last Wednesday questioned why Democratic Rep. Dan Dodd (Hebron) would co-sponsor with Republicans legislation requiring doctors to make available fetal pictures to women seeking abortions.

Here's BSB's questions, and Dodd's reply to LICOPAC (www.licopac.org):

The BSB post (Sept. 19):

"Yo Dan Dodd! Watcha' Doin' There, Buddy?

I just got done reading newly introduced HB 314,
introduced by ultra-wing nut Shannon Jones.

Sec. 2317.561. ...if an obstetric ultrasound
examination is performed at any time prior to the
performance or inducement of an abortion or the
physician performing or inducing the abortion
determines that an ultrasound examination will be
performed as part of the abortion procedure, the
physician shall do both of the following prior to the
performance or inducement of the abortion:

(A) Provide the pregnant woman receiving the abortion
the opportunity to view the active ultrasound image of
the embryo or fetus;

(B) Offer to provide the pregnant woman with a
physical picture of the ultrasound image of the embryo
or fetus.

The requirements of division (A) of this section shall
be performed at no additional charge to the pregnant
woman.

You got all that? Jones' bill requires doctors to
provide pregnant women seeking abortions the
opportunity to see their ultrasounds, and receive
physical pictures of those ultrasounds, at no cost if
they desire.

Sounds fair enough. My only question is why Shannon
Jones is busy legislating a practice that's already
carried out by Ohio's abortion providers. Seems like a
rather poor use of her time to me.

And second question is why the hell Dan Dodd is
jumping on this legislation as a co-sponsor with all
those GOPers? Like I said, I don't have a problem with
giving women the opportunity to see their ultrasound
pictures (pshaw...I'm just trying to picture a doctor
actually refusing this. The implication on behalf of
Jones and the legislature is comical). The problem
would arise if Ohio's privacy invaded, crazy morality
judgin' Republicans force women to look at these
pictures prior to an abortion. That'd be over the
line. That's not in the bill yet, but I suppose that's
what amendments are for, right GOPers?

And once again, Dan, what're you doing?

Seriously, you've been doing a great job. But why give
cover to the GOP when they're baiting on a BS bill
like this? Of course giving women the opportunity to
see these ultrasounds is all fine and good...but the
implication of your bill is that they don't have
access already."

When I asked Dodd about the bill, he sent me this explanation:

"1. Under current law, doctors are not required to
provide the option of viewing the ultrasound image. I
think they ought to be, and most people agree with
that (the post sounded like you don't have a problem
with this per se). I'm not sure if this is commonly
done or not, so I suppose it may be redundant or
unecessary, but even if it is, compliance with the new
law won't be that onerous.

2. I think it's worth noting that the pro-choice
governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, signed an
identical piece of legislation into law in Michigan.

3. Regarding your fear of the bill being amended, the
House does have a mechanism by which sponsors can have
their names removed from the bill if a bill is altered
in such a way where a sponsor no longer supports it.
If the bill was amended to require the patient to view
the ultrasound, I can assure you that I would remove
my name. That isn't what I have signed on for, and if
I have either been intentionally misled by the
introducing sponsor, or if someone hijacks the
legislation at some point in the process, I will
remove my name from the bill.

4. I do understand your argument about giving things
like this "cover" by giving these folks the
possibility of saying this is bipartisan and that's a
fair point. However, I can attest that if you look at
the bills we've voted on this year, many have gone
forward with zero Democratic co-sponsors. Simply put,
the Speaker will move whatever bills he chooses
regardless of the number of sponsors so long as the
main sponsor is a Republican."


Dodd, a freshman Democrat in a very conservative district, has a very nuanced position on abortion. This, from his website (www.doddforohio.com ):

"The topic of abortion and personal health choices is one of the most personal and divisive issues in politics. I am 100% pro-life and my religious faith leads me to not support abortion. However, I think many people who call themselves pro-life have a woeful record when it comes to improving the quality and culture of life for children.

I believe in what is called "a consistent ethic of life." This means that while I do not support abortion, I also do not support eliminating programs for pre-natal care or instruction for new parents. I also believe in the sanctity of all human lives, not just those at the beginning of life."