I had the impression that lots of medical procedures and practices are regulated by laws. (Medical procedures of all types. For both sexes. And all ages.)
And yet, two words: Kermit Gosnell. Apparently there was a need for either legislation, or the legally-prescribed oversight, in his part of the world.

One of the more ignorant comments. According to a NY Times article just out, a colonoscopy saves lives as well. Should the government mandate that as well? Should the VA legislature pass a law that everyone over 50 must have a Sony video camera shoved up where the sun don't shine?

I thought this was a conservative site where we object to the government telling us how to live our lives

Surely you can recognize the difference between VOLUNTARY guidelines entered into by professionals and COERCION thrust upon the same group by State action! This is the crux of limited government, are we a limited government under self rule and voluntary acts or are we subjects of a coercive State! By your own admission the guidelines are there, that's begs the question, why argue for State coercion? Will the General Assembly adopt the suggested maintenance schedule for my Acura into the code next?

Just so we don't have any "misinformation"....do women have a CHOICE as to whether or not to undergo an invasive probe under the VA law?

Even if they were telling the truth...the word they are trying to scare everyone with here is that the doctor will perform an "invasive" procedure. Umm...the woman is there for an abortion. I'm no doctor, but I don't know..."abortion" already sounds kind of "invasive."

Wow. With all that technical talk you make it sound so sophisticated, something with which you could hold court at cocktail parties. But a quick, simple question for you: at what exact point in the pregnancy of a healthy woman with a healthy baby inside her would you say its morally wrong to take an innocent life?

My twin cousins were born premature and my aunt and uncle were told the boys were not viable at birth. They couldn't breath on their own, and even with the best technology it didn't look like they'd make it. Fortunately they did make it and today they are both fathers in their own families.

What I can't figure out is the morality where you would say my cousins had human dignity and a right to life when they were born, but if another woman getting an abortion at the same time in the same hospital as my aunt, and with twins at the exact same stage of development, then you would say that her twins do not have a right to life at all. Perhaps it's because I'm an "intellectual luddite," but this seem arbitrary to me.

All seriously premature babies aren't viable in that they usually can't breath on their own. Technology improves however, and many that weren't viable born one day are viable the next. (Or in the case of my cousins, the doctor's diagnosis turns out to be wrong.) Once again, technology seems a rather arbitrary basis on which to establish if a baby has a right to life. Indeed, whether you want to use the Declaration of Independence or the Bible as your guide, a baby's right to life isn't something that is ours to give or take away. This is the whole point of "unalienable rights."

Now let's go to your last sentence. You write:

"I also have a lot of difficulty justifying government interference in telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body, and I don't think that a partially formed and possibly non-viable fetus's legal rights should ever outweigh those of a living, breathing, fully formed human being."

First, let's note that in this case you allow that the baby might be viable after all. It's living. It's breathing. It's not fully formed, but even a healthy newborn is a long way from from fully formed (more on that in a sec). You also acknowledge that the baby has rights, but that the mother's rights are of greater weight. It's interesting that you say "government interference...with her own body" because we aren't talking about her body, we are talking about the body of her baby which you already allowed is both viable and has rights. Question: what rights of the woman are being violated by not allowing her to kill her son or daughter? What specific right of the mother must we give "greater weight" over the son or daughter's right to life at this point?

Princeton's Peter Singer points out that even a newborn child isn't fully formed at birth and there is a lot of development left for the child, which is why he believes, like you, that his rights are entirely outweighed by the mother who should be allowed to kill the child even for a period of time after normal child birth. Your last sentence says a mother should be allowed to abort a "possible viable," and definitely living, breathing boy or girl. What distinguishes your morality from that of Peter Singer in this instance?

P.S. I know you are smarter than everyone here, but are you sure you know the meaning of the word "luddite"? And what exactly is an "intellectual luddite"?

As usual, government mandates are a-okay around here so long as they serve some Republican purpose. I hesitate to use the term "conservative," of course, because we are discussing a government dictate over the way that doctors conduct procedures with their own patients.

Of course, if we're rushing to defend Romneycare, then any tyranny of the states must be fine. If it's not federal, it's great!

This bill is a perfect example of the nanny state at work. As the authors note, "Ultrasound is standard medical care". Thus, there is no need for the state to become involved in this issue. We need to get the state off of doctors' backs and let them do the jobs they are trained to do using the best standards of care, not the one-size-fits-all judgements of legislators.