Truthfully, I expect most laws like this to get overturned… That is generally the trend.

And for all I know, the Guv’na expects the same… He has been in politics a fair deal.

I am appreciative that an Ohio Democrat would rise above the partison lines set at the national level and respect the more conservative values of the Ohio majority… If the legislation stuck, that would be amazing too.

Of course it is only as good as its enforcement… And Planned Barrenhood doesn’t have a real stellar record of obeying laws.

Not that I’m a medical expert, but even laws about immunizations have opt-out clauses and they serve a public interest by preventing the spread of disease; here, it would be difficult to argue that requiring a woman to go through an ultrasound is in the public interest. In light of previously posted information indicating that abortions disproportionately affect minorities, while the law on its face is neutral, it’s a government action with a disproprotionate affect on minorities, which in itself is grounds for challenge.

Also, my understanding of abortion and ultrasound is that each has requirements about when they occur, which are opposite with ultrasounds not being performed before the end of the first trimester, which is after many abortions occur. This in iteself is another conflict because, based on what you say here, the law, intended to dissuade women from taking part in a legal medical procedure, on its face, is designed to a) have another procedure at a time it isn’t safe for the fetus in order to b) persuade the mother c) not to follow through with her intent to have a legal medical procedure. The potential here is to harm the fetus though the intent is to save it.

I don’t know the history of Ohio laws, but do know that a recent South Dakota law outlawing abortion was challenged and struck down. I would expect the same groups to challenge this law.

Expect analogies to Nazi medical experiments when reading about response to this law.