If you want to read the full text of the bill, there's a link from Ms. -- but be warned, it will download as a document. (The part about the ultrasounds is in Section 12.)

Now, I think that the decision to have an abortion is a very serious one, and should not be taken lightly. But this law goes too far. There's a piece on the Huffington Post -- written by Dana Stone, who's a doctor and fellow of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- that does a good job of explaining why it's egregious. For example: It forces women to have a procedure done that is not medically necessary (and since vaginal ultrasounds produce better pictures than abdominal ultrasounds in the early stages of pregnancy, this law would often require women to have additional medical instruments put inside them against their wishes). As such, it violates patients' rights to refuse treatment or testing. It also creates penalties that are disproportionately severe. $10,000 for a first offense? According to Stone, in Oklahoma, the maximum fine for driving under the influence or, for that matter, negligent homicide is only $1,000. (It's not as if Oklahoma previously had a laissez-faire attitude toward abortions: In Oklahoma, laws already exist that require abortion providers to tell women where they can find information about fetal development, and refer them to locations where they can get free ultrasounds.)

And then there's the bill's nickname: the "Freedom of Conscience Act." It is unclear whether they are referring to the doctors' consciences (i.e., if you force the woman to have an ultrasound and she still wants an abortion, it's not your fault) or the women's (because clearly you must be free from a conscience if you decide to terminate a pregnancy). I thought of proposing an alternate bill called the "Freedom to Not Have an Ultrasound Wand Stuck Up Your Vagina When It's Not Medically Necessary and You Don't Want It There" Act, but so far at least, Oklahoma's Legislature seems unreceptive.