P1: JQX

Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

Journal of Medical Humanities, Vol. 25, No. 1, Spring 2004 (°

C 2004)

Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb?: Obstetric

Ultrasound and the Abortion Rights Debate
Joanne Boucher1

This paper explores the rhetoric of obstetric ultrasound technology as it relates

to the abortion debate, specifically the interpretation given to ultrasound images
by opponents of abortion. The tenor of the anti-abortion approach is precisely
captured in the videotape, Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb. Aspects of this
videotape are analyzed in order to tease out the assumptions about the (female)
body and about the access to truth yielded by scientific technology (ultrasound)
held by militant opponents of abortion. It is argued that the ultrasound images do
not offer transparent confirmation of the ontological status of the embryo and fetus.
Rather, the “window” of ultrasound is constructed through a complex combination
of visual and verbal devices: ultrasound images, photographic images, verbal
argument, and emotional appeal.
KEY WORDS: obstetric ultrasound; fetal imagery; abortion; ontology.

Since the 1970s, obstetric ultrasound has become a commonplace feature of

prenatal care in North America. Ultrasound is a visualizing technique in which
a transducer, lubricated with a gel, is placed on a pregnant woman’s abdomen.
The transducer emits sound waves through the amniotic fluid. These sound waves
bounce off fetal structures and are “translated” into images—either still or moving
and in real time—on a monitor. These images are then interpreted by a medical
technician to ascertain key information about the health and characteristics of a
developing fetus.2

1 Address Correspondence to Joanne Boucher, Department of Politics, University of Winnipeg,

Manitoba, Canada R3B 2E9; e-mail: j.boucher@uwinnipeg.ca.
2 See Ann Oakley, The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women, (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1984), 155–186 for a detailed history of the development of ultrasonography. Oakley
documents its origins in the techniques of naval warfare during World War I and its eventual use in
obstetrics beginning in the late 1950s in Glasgow.

7
1041-3545/04/0300-0007/0 °
C 2004 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

8 Boucher

From its inception, ultrasound has been a visualizing technology implicated

in the drama of the development of the “public fetus,” the promotion of “fetal
personhood” and, consequently, abortion politics (Petchesky, 1987). In particu-
lar, anti-abortion activists have seized upon ultrasound imaging as a potentially
useful tool to push for the re-criminalization of abortion in the United States
and Canada. This hope inspires the video Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb,
which will be examined in this article. This video was produced by Shari Richard,
an ultrasound technician and founder of the organization Sound Wave Images,
Inc. (SWI). Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb proclaims that ultrasound is a
“superb tool for teaching us about our prenatal developmental stages” because
we can now see “in exquisite detail how the unborn child is formed” and that
ultrasound images reveal the “beautiful continuity of the unborn.” This notion—
life begins at the precise moment of conception–dominates Ultrasound: A Win-
dow to the Womb (and the anti-abortion movement more generally). If ultrasound
images “prove” that life begins at conception, then the equation is made that
abortion is murder and should be criminalized. Thus, SWI’s promotional mate-
rials declare that “ultrasound is the abortionist’s greatest fear” (Chuplis, 1990;
http://www.unbom.com/about us/mission statement.html).
In what follows I will illustrate how the ultrasound images presented in the
video do not “speak” their meaning of their own accord. That is to say, the foun-
dational premise of A Window to the Womb is erroneous. The shifting, blurry, and
shadowy images of ultrasound cannot bear the burden of proof of the ontological
status of the embryo or fetus. Moreover, when the video is examined closely it
becomes evident that it is a complex combination of ultrasound images, photo-
graphic images, verbal argument, written text, and emotional appeal which are
mobilized to “prove” that life begins at conception. In other words, the “window”
of ultrasound is constructed through multiple layers of explanation, using these
various elements of visual image and verbal argument, not the imaging technology
itself.
However, I do not suggest that a more accurate visualizing technique could
capture some immutable truth concerning the origins of life. New visualizing tech-
nologies do permit unprecedented access to previously uncharted interior spaces
of a woman’s body and to the processes of human reproduction and development.
These technologies will undoubtedly continue to create a revolution in women’s
experiences of pregnancy and child bearing and in how our culture imagines the
embryo and fetus. Yet the notion that these interior spaces have disclosed an exact
truth about the origins of life is profoundly problematic. It simplistically conflates
the image (produced by photograph, ultrasound or Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
with the “real” and is steeped in a teleological conception of human development
in which a single cell becomes equivalent to a fully-formed human being with
a predestined life span and trajectory. Moreover, no visualizing technique, how-
ever sophisticated, can confirm the metaphysical status of a cell, embryo or fetus.
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb? 9

Ultimately, the ways in which reproductive processes, women’s bodies, embryos

and fetuses are experienced, imagined, monitored, and regulated are the result of
complex social processes. Cultural products such as A Window to the Womb at-
tempt, in a sense, to stop debate and discussion about their meaning. They wish to
halt alternative possible readings of these newly charted interior landscapes and
end discussion with a definitive declaration that these pictures tell one story and
unveil one truth—that life begins at the moment of conception. In what follows, I
will investigate how this claim is bolstered with multiple rhetorical devices. I will
further show that A Window to the Womb tries to obfuscate this reliance upon a
multiplicity of verbal and visual sources. Ultrasound images, certainly as repre-
sented in this video, do not supply a transparent confirmation of the ontological
status of the embryo and fetus.
I will restrict my attention to only one portion of A Window to the Womb in
which core data concerning fetal development are presented and in which the case
is made that life begins at conception. This case, it must be emphasized, relies
centrally upon the language of modem science and medicine. Religious rhetoric
appears to be superseded by the objective claims of science. The appeal is to
reason, not God: “Life begins at conception. We have the pictures—courtesy of
new medical technologies—to prove it” (http://www.unbom.com/about us/mis-
sion statement.html).
The sequence I will examine is about 10 minutes long in a 30 minute video.
The rest of the video comprises footage of a lecture by Shari Richard to a high
school age classroom audience and of testimonials by two young women about their
experiences of and responses to unplanned pregnancies. The narrative of fetal de-
velopment is presented in 9 sections which are designated by inter-titles as follows:
1) Fertilization; 2) 4–5 weeks from conception; 3) 6–7 weeks from conception;
4) 10 weeks from conception; 5) 11–12 weeks from conception; 6) 2nd trimester
13–28 weeks; 7) 2nd trimester—normal anatomy; 8) 3rd trimester 28–40 weeks;
and 9) 3rd trimester—facial anatomy. One of the most significant features of this
segment of the video is that the viewer is, in fact, presented with two consecutive
and discrete accounts of embryonic and fetal development each with its own set
of visual images, distinct narration and tone. I now turn to a discussion of this
feature.

Photographic Images

In the first account, photographic images are accompanied by an authoritative

female voice-over track. The narrator uses the authority of scientific language to
explain the phases of development depicted in the photographs. The voice-over
adopts the typical “voice of God” tone of the realist convention of the documen-
tary film. It is authoritative, unemotional, factual. In the second account, we are
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

10 Boucher

presented with a series of ultrasound images. The verbal commentary is provided

by Shari Richard, the producer of the video, who offers the equivalent gestational
data to that depicted in the photographs. However, what is most striking about the
use of these alternating sets of images is that it is the photographic images which
contextualize the ultrasound images. The photographic images begin the narrative.
Indeed, it is the sharp, clear, magnified quality of the photographs which gives the
viewer the visual cues in deciphering the indistinct blurs of the ultrasound images
that follow.
These photographs were taken by Lennart Nilsson and were first published for
a mass audience by LIFE magazine in 1965. Many scholars have noted that the pho-
tographs are, in fact, of dead, indeed, aborted fetuses. Paradoxically, then, the dead
fetus has become a powerful cultural symbol of life itself used to testify to the “right
to life” of the fetus (Duden, 1993; Franklin, 1991; Michaels, 1999; Newman, 1996).
These photographs are potent precisely because they are photographs. In Roland
Barthes’s renowned formulation, the photograph can be understood to gain its
power because “it is a message without a code.” Thus, “the image is not the reality
but at least it is its perfect analogon and it is exactly this analogical perfection
which, to common sense, defines the photograph” (Barthes, 1977, p. 17). Thus,
despite the artifice involved in the production of the fetal photographs, the aborted
fetus becomes a “real,” living fetus via the medium of photography.
Moreover, the photographs gain their visual force because of their familiar-
ity. Nilsson’s photographs have become ubiquitous representations of the fetus
largely owing to their use by anti-abortion activists in North America in their pro-
paganda in the past few decades. These photographic images have entered public
consciousness by recurrent use on posters and pamphlets, and serve to personify
the human fetus and make the claim that the human embryo or fetus is an unborn
baby. In the video, this religious or metaphysical position is presented as scientific
fact with reference to the development of human organs, features, functions, and,
crucially, personality. The visual images and verbal text work in tandem to assert
the humanity and completeness of the fertilized egg, embryo and fetus. However,
religious or metaphysical argumentation appears to fade into the background as
the anti-abortion movement seems to enter the era of the Enlightenment (Franklin,
1991).
However, upon closer inspection, the arguments ultimately rely more upon
faith than reason. Consider, for instance, in the photographic sequence depicting
fertilization, the narrator pronounces that “the birth of a human life occurs at the
moment of conception when the mother’s egg or ovum is fertilized by one of the
father’s sperm. During this act of conception, the two cells become a single living
cell, a unique individual who never existed before in history and will never be
duplicated again” (Chuplis, 1990). If we unpack this sentence it becomes evident
that one medico-scientific fact is presented here along with ontological and tele-
ological assertions. The first proposition that “the birth of a human life occurs at
the moment of conception” is ontological. Next, the biological fact that “the two
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb? 11

cells become a single living cells” is followed by an ontological and teleological

claim which resonates with the language of genetics, that the cell is “a unique
individual who never existed before in history and will never be duplicated again.”
The leap of faith required to equate a single cell and a fully formed human being is
staggering but is precisely at the core of the anti-abortion rhetoric. Indeed, Sarah
Franklin’s comments concerning the tenor of anti-abortion rhetoric are entirely apt
in this context. She writes:
The “miracle” of fetal development as a biological process, and the stamp of biogenetic
uniqueness which is replicated throughout its development, are drawn upon again and again
in the current public debate about abortion. The emphasis upon what the fetus is going to
become, upon its genetically determined development, inevitably leads to a focus upon its
developmental potential as a person, as an individual human being with an entire life course
mapped out for it from the moment of conception. There is thus not only a focus upon the
fact that it is constitutionally (ontologically) an individual person, but on the fact that it is
developmentally a potential human adult. There is thus a sense in which the conceptus is
provided with an entire life cycle through the construction of itsdevelopmental potential,
which is simultaneously naturalized and authorized through its representation as biological
fact. This teleological construction of the “natural facts” of pregnancy has become a major
component of the anti-abortion argument that “life begins at conception.” (Franklin, 1991,
pp. 197–198)

Moreover, it must be emphasized that it is the verbal arguments of the narrator

which explain the meaning of the photographs to the viewer. The photographs do
not “speak” self-evident truths. For instance, the narrator indicates that the length
of the embryo is l/400 at 4–5 weeks from conception, 11300 at 6–7 weeks from
00
conception, and 2 12 at 10 weeks from conception. The narrator is thus offering
the viewer accurate information concerning the dimensions of the embryo—it is
l/400 , 11300 and so on. However, the visual images which accompany the narration
are vastly larger than these dimensions. Indeed, the images fill a video screen. In
one particularly complex moment, the magnified image of an embryo at 6–7 weeks
from conception (its ‘real’ size l/300 ) fills the screen. Indeed, it would be hardly
visible without magnification. Nonetheless the narrator declares that “the dark
circles of the eyes are the retina and can be clearly seen” (Chuplis, 1990). Thus,
the viewer is given information about the real size of the human embryo but this
“reality” fades as the verbal commentary overrides this information. Consequently,
it is the photographed, studio-lit, posed and magnified embryo which represents
the “true” embryo.

Ultrasound Images

Numerous commentators have noted the particularly indistinct quality of

ultrasound images. For instance, Lisa M. Mitchell and Eugenia Georges comment
on the paradox of this specific imaging technology—that it requires an interpreter
(i.e. a technician) to explain the image. They note, “Paradoxically, though many
of us recognize little or nothing in the fetal blur, we nonetheless regard the image
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

12 Boucher

as persuasive evidence confirming far more than the pregnancy” (Mitchell and
Georges, 1998, p. 106). Similarly, Janelle Taylor explains, “Ultrasound images
themselves do not look exactly like photographs—they are grainier, fuzzier, less
distinct. Their “reading” is in large measure a matter of specialist interpretation”
(Taylor, 1992, p. 76).
Certainly in A Window to the Womb Shari Richard continuously speaks the
meaning of the ultrasound images. Her cheerful commentary guides the gaze of
the viewer and imparts an unequivocal interpretation of what is seen. The tone
of Richard’s commentary is strikingly different from that in the first account. Her
tone is anecdotal, chatty, humourous, sensitive, as well as scientific. Contextually,
this makes some sense in that the setting is a classroom lecture to what appear to
be high school students. She is trying to communicate to her young audience and
the reaction shots used underscore the dynamic between lecturer and audience.
Further help is provided by Richard’s visual cues and the use of text. She
uses a pointer to show specific parts of the image of the fetus. In addition, text is
superimposed on the image (e.g. ‘arms’, ‘legs’, etc.) to confirm the meaning of
the image. Moreover, it is striking, given the premise of the video of ultrasound
as a window to the womb, that there is no attention drawn to the use of both
photographic and ultrasound images. The two sets of images seem to meld together
as no distinction between them is made. Both of these technologies—photography
and ultrasound—picture and so capture the essential truth of the personhood of
the embryo/fetus. It seems, with this purpose in mind, there is no need to make a
distinction between the type of images.
In terms of the presentation of ultrasound images, similar rhetorical strategies
to those used in relation to the photographic images may be noted. For instance,
Shari Richard presents an ultrasound image of two “7 week old babies.” She
does indicate with the first image that it is magnified. Of course, this is essential
information given that the “real” size is about l/300 . Ms. Richard then declares
that “now you can clearly identify the arms and the legs and the head.” However,
the viewer’s gaze is directed to the white text imposed on the image. The words
“arm,” “legs,” and “head,” are spelled out and arrows point to the relevant spots
on the ultrasound image (see Figure 1). The next image of a “7 week old” is
similarly marked with superimposed text, and the viewers’ attention is directed
by a pointer which indicates the uterus, the gestational sac and the “baby.” In a
sequence depicting images of a 10 week fetus, Shari Richard similarly narrates
all of the “action.” However, in this segment it is the activity of the fetus which is
the focus of her commentary as she declares: “He is now able to move vigorously
within the womb; there he jumps, just waved at you, now he’s going to do a jump for
you. . . . There he goes. He is able to utilize the whole of the uterine cavity “cause
he’s got all this space to move. . . . Here he’s going to get ready for another jump;
now he’s turning and looking at us. . . . You can see his eyes. . . . He does a few
more jumps. . . . The mother, he would not hold still for 30 minutes, this mother
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb? 13

Fig. 1. Fetus at seven weeks.

was really impressed to see what he could do” (Chuplis, 1990) (see Figure 2).
Moreover, what is remarkable in this passage is that Richard asserts that the fetus
is able to engage in direct social interaction with its audience—“now he’s turning
and looking at us . . .” She thus rhetorically dissolves the “barrier” of the woman’s
body as effectively as ultrasound technology and announces the fetus as a being
already occupying a social space independent of its mother.
Ms. Richard’s verbal commentary accompanying the ultrasound images of
10 week fraternal twins also emphasizes the activity of the two fetuses. Further-
more, she is at pains to indicate that the twins are engaged in distinct activities.
She says: “The baby on the left is moving and jumping around while the one on the
right is hanging out and sucking his thumb.” Indeed, the words “thumb sucking”
are superimposed on the image—as if this were some sort of specialized medical
information. She then adds, “They develop those habits in utero” (Chuplis, 1990),
the individuality and personality of the human fetus in general thus established. The
viewer (under Ms. Richard’s careful direction) watches the “evidence” that unique
human personalities exist—even at 10 weeks gestation as two fetuses choose to
occupy their time in different ways (see Figure 3).
Indeed, in her commentary on the ultrasound image of a 14 week fetus
Ms. Richard goes further and ascribes talents to the fetus which even a newborn
infant does not possess. She explains the moving image in the following terms:
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

Fig. 2. Fetus at ten weeks.

Fig. 3. Two fetuses.

14
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb? 15

Fig. 4. Fetus at fourteen weeks.

“Now this baby is 14 weeks old and he’s going to try to stand on his head in a
minute. This is his head and his back. Now watch him as he climbs that uterine
wall. Can you see? Look at that back arch. See how limber they are. They can do
more in utero than a new born baby can do outside of the womb because of the
amniotic fluid present. Look [as] he struggles to stand on his head there” (Chuplis,
1990) (see Figure 4).
Throughout the ultrasound sequences, the grey blurs of the ultrasound are
interpreted/explained by Shari Richard. Her narration and visual aids—the super-
imposed text and pointer—carefully direct the viewer to specific interpretations.
Jn particular, Richard is persistent in her attempts to imbue the fetal images with
personality and volition. The fetal images are not explained in the technical lan-
guage of the photographic sequences but in the language of life and personhood.
The fetus is shown to exert his will—and is invariably referred to with the male
pronoun. He waves, jumps, turns and sucks his thumb. In short, the fetus acts of
his own volition. He is an independent human being and personality. He has free
will and autonomy. Moreover, he establishes social relationships as he interacts
with other human beings—he waves, turns and looks at the classroom audience
and the viewer; he impresses his mother with his feats. Reaction shots from the
classroom audience of young women and men laughing and smiling in response
to the images confirm the charm of these “babies.”
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

16 Boucher

This rhetorical strategy is, of course, not unique to Shari Richard. The notion
of a distinct fetal personality has been a constant component of the rhetoric of ob-
stetric visualizing techniques. Indeed, medical practitioners who have pioneered
and worked with these technologies have promoted this conception of fetal per-
sonhood and personality in their work. For example, Monica J. Casper documents
the extent to which William Liley, an early pioneer of fetal surgery promoted this
idea. Liley advanced the view of the agency of the fetus in utero. For instance,
Casper cites Liley commenting on the capacities of the fetus:
The fetus is a young human, dynamic, plastic, resilient, in command of his own environment
and destiny with a tenacious purpose” and “at no stage can we subscribe to the view that
the fetus is a mere appendage to the mother. . . . The early embryo stops mother’s periods
and induces all manner of changes in maternal physiology to make of his mother a suitable
host . . . It is argued that the fetus is incapable of independent existence. However, the fetus
can outlive his mother, and dead women have been delivered of live babies. Independent
existence is a relative concept.” (quoted in Casper, 1998, p. 61)

In this sense, then, Richard’s video can be seen as contributing to the continuing
development of the cultural narrative of fetal personhood.
Thus, the combination of Nilsson’s photographs, Ms. Richard’s narration and
direction, and detailed markings of the images with super-imposed text makes the
ultrasound images “make sense.” There is, thus, a disjuncture in the central claim
of the video that ultrasound offers a clear window to the womb and the explicit
direction required by an expert to read these images. However, this disjuncture
nonetheless serves to reinforce the sense of “scientificity” and so, the authenticity
or real-ness of the images. Shari Richard, in her role as scientist “proves” the
reality of fetal life and personhood. The visual image can only be interpreted by
the expert, but the expert appeals to the scientific facts and thus undercuts the
viewer’s possible doubts about the clarity of what is being seen. What is seen by
the viewer is not clear, but Richard’s verbal explanation tells us that it is clear. Thus,
we hear the voice of science. Consider, for instance, the fact that the ultrasound
images not only have text which directs our attention to the hands and legs of the
fetal images, but also are framed by various diagnostic and technical pieces of
information written on the outer edges of the images (see Figs. l–4). The character
of this information is, of course, obscure to most viewers. But this added layer of
writing serves to underscore the real-ness of what the viewer sees. These images
may be unclear but they are products of a complex scientific technology, which
confirms that they are true/real.
Technology is, in this sense, not problematized but reified. It seemingly offers
unmediated access to the interior of a woman’s body. The specific truth to which this
technology gives access is the humanity of the unborn. Moreover, this seems to be
the only truth revealed. It is striking in the rhetoric that nothing other than the fetus
appears to be present in the interior of a woman’s body. There is little mention of the
muscle tissue, organs, or placenta, for example. In other words, the woman’s body
becomes little more than the incubator in which the fetus resides. In this connection
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb? 17

it is well worth noting the ways in which the uterus is characterized throughout
this segment of the video. It is referred to by both female narrators variously as
“all this space,” “his living quarters,” and “his private playground.” For instance,
the narration accompanying the photographic images of a third trimester fetus
explains that at this stage of development the baby’s “living quarters become very
cramped.” In short, the inescapable dependence of the fetus on the body of the
living mother is persistently obscured both visually and verbally.

The Presentation of the Self

Shari Richard’s self-presentation in the video is also of interest. She presents

herself in an amalgam of roles. She is a scientist, privy to the secrets of nature: “a
registered ultrasound technologist who had the opportunity to watch the unborn
in the privacy of the womb and watch first hand the benefits of this technology.”
Connected to this, and owing to the nature of ultrasound imagery, Richard is an
interpreter of these images. She “translates” the blurry images of ultrasound into
language comprehensible to a lay audience, imparting her medical expertise to
her patients and the viewers. However, in so doing, Richard does far more than
this. Indeed, she “introduces” the embryo, the fetus, the unborn baby to its mother,
father, other family members and the viewing audience. Thus, she begins the
bonding process between mother, family and child and, in this sense, initiates
its entry into the social world. That is, Shari Richard persistently focuses on the
activity of the embryo or fetus and its imagined interactions with mother, father
and audience in her commentary.
But Richard is also an educator. The video functions as an educational tool and
to reinforce this role, she is shown lecturing to a classroom audience. Richard’s role
as educator also has a clear spiritual component to it. Shari Richard teaches in order
to transmit the truths she has learned through the marvels of ultrasound technology,
specifically, that the embryo/fetus is a human being. Indeed, she confesses in her
lecture to the classroom audience that it was only after she had two abortions that
she was privy to this knowledge. Moreover, it was during an ultrasound examination
in which this truth was revealed. After this experience, Ms. Richard felt compelled
to transmit this truth to the general public. In this sense her work has a missionary
aspect. In the opening comments of her lecture to the classroom, she asserts: “I
believe if a window was placed upon the abdomen of every pregnant woman
and the world could see what I view every day that there really would not be
an abortion issue and the unborn would be recognized for its [sic] constitutional
rights” (Chuplis, 1990).
However, there is one role which is entirely obfuscated throughout the video
but which is, nonetheless, rudimentary. Ms. Richard’s video does not refer ex-
plicitly to her role as an economic entrepreneur. But if one consults the Web-site
of SW1 is becomes clear that an entire array of services are on display in the
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

18 Boucher

video. First, there is the video itself which is, of course, a commodity. Further, Ms.
Richard’s services as a lecturer are offered on the Web-site. In addition, courses to
train ultrasound technicians are offered, and, finally, ultrasound machines are for
sale. Moreover, on the Web-site the primary sales target for all of these various ser-
vices and commodities is made clear: it is to Pregnancy Care Centers. These centers
are funded and operated by various anti-abortion groups in the United States and
Canada. Their intent is to counsel women not to have abortions. As SWI’s Web-site
indicates, these Centers offer “counseling, education, material needs, abstinence
training, pre-natal care, adoption referrals, maternity care homes, post-abortion
counseling and technical training for computer training classes.” Shari Richard’s
economic enterprise is connected to the fact that many Pregnancy Care Center are
beginning to provide specific medical services such as ultrasound, pregnancy diag-
nosis, and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. This is SWI’s particular niche
market: “To assist (PCC’s) in obtaining ultrasound imaging, medical referrals and
support for their clients, Sound Wave Images (SWI) has developed The Imaging
Network Diagnostic Manual and Program. The manual and course will assist and
train medical professionals in providing medical care and ultrasound service to
women dealing with unexpected pregnancies.” Richard claims that in her work in
Pregnancy Care Centers she has seen a 90% decrease in abortion. Hence, the sales
pitch, “Ask yourself this question. Could ultrasound be the unifying tool that brings
the PCC’s and medical field together and enables them to educate our community,
reduce teen pregnancy and abortions and most of all change hearts to respect life
regardless of political views and laws? 90% decrease in abortion is our answer!”
(http:www.unborn.com/services/courses/ultrasound.html).
Thus, one uncovers a curious mixture of the commercial and moral motive.
Richard’s depiction of herself in the video as educator, scientist, and concerned
citizen obfuscates the essential economic dimension of her project. However, this
commercial aspect of her skills as an ultrasound technician are glossed over amidst
all of the medical, technical, and moral information conveyed throughout Ultra-
sound: A Window to the Womb. Perhaps it is hardly surprising that Richard sup-
presses this aspect of her endeavors, as it would appear that Richard is in the
morally awkward position of engaging in an entrepreneurial venture—on behalf
of the unborn.

REFERENCES

Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text (S. Heath, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.
Casper, M. J. (1998). The making of the unborn patient: A social anatomy of fetal surgery. New
Brunswick, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press.
Chuplis, C. (Producer), & Richard S. (Director). (1990). Ultrasound: A window to the womb.
[Videotape]. (Available from Sound Wave Images, Inc., 2422 Harness Drive, W. Bloomfield,
MI 48324).
Duden, B. (1993). Disembodying women: Perspectives on pregnancy and the unborn (L. Hoinacki,
Trans.). Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
P1: JQX
Journal of Medical Humanities [jmh] ph237-jomh-476221 November 25, 2003 14:45 Style file version Nov 28th, 2002

Ultrasound: A Window to the Womb? 19

Sarah F. (1991). Fetal fascinations: New dimensions to the medical-scientific construction of fetal
personhood. In S. Franklin, C. Lury, & J. Stacey (Eds.), Off-centre: Feminism and cultural studies
(pp. 190–203). London: Harper Collins.
Michaels, M. W. (1999). Fetal galaxies: Some questions about what we see. In L. M. Morgan, &
M. W. Michaels (Eds.), Fetal subjects, feminist positions (pp. 113–132). Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Mitchell, L. M., & Georges, E. (1998). Baby’s first picture: The cyborg fetus of ultrasound imaging. In
R. Davis-Floyd, & J. Dunnit (Eds.), Cyborg babies: From techno-sex to techno-tots (pp.105–124).
New York and London: Routledge.
Newman, K. (1996). Fetal positions: Individualism, science, visuality. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Oakley, A. (1984). The captured womb: A history of the medical care of pregnant women. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Petchesky, R. P. (1987). Foetal images: the power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. In
M. Stanworth (Ed.), Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood and medicine (pp. 57–80).
Cambridge: Polity.
Sound Waves Jmages Inc., http://www.unborn.com/about us/mission statement.htm
Taylor, J. S. (1992). The public fetus and the family car: From abortion politics to a Volvo advertisement.
Public Culture, 4(2), 67–80.