Searching for a  plaintiff to challenge a recent state law requiring a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound before she gets an abortion?

Megan Carpentier is probably not your answer.

Yet, the reporter has attempted to shed light on the details, of what she feels is an unnecessarily intrusive procedure, by subjecting herself to it in Cleveland, Ohio even though she is not pregnant, according to Yahoo News.

Those in favor and against the ultrasound have voiced their opinions concerning the required pre-abortion procedure.

Now Carpentier, the executive editor at Raw Story, has documented her experience with the procedure and reported her thoughts regarding it.

Her thoughts are as followed:

"It was vigorously uncomfortable," Carpentier wrote, largely "because the technician has to press the wand directly against the areas she wants to get an image of—your uterus, Fallopian tubes and ovaries—so there's more movement and more direct contact with pressure-sensitive areas of your body."

She concluded: "It's not a choice to be made at a distance by elected officials with an ideological axe to grind, little medical knowledge and a belief that it's acceptable to require doctors to put unnecessary instruments inside women's bodies in an effort to achieve in practice what they can't constitutionally pass into law: an end to abortion."

Abortion has always been a hot-button issue that has even prompted former U.S. presidents to appoint Supreme Court justices based on their views regarding it.

The Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, announced that a state may impose regulations in order to persuade or inform a woman about  the risks of abortion as long as the regulation does not place an "undue burden" upon the woman's right to have an abortion.

In Casey, the court further held that this undue burden standard applies pre-viability, which is around the beginning of the woman's 3rd trimester. This is the stage when a fetus can theoretically survive on its own.

When the fetus reaches viability the court has granted states greater deference in regulating abortion because it has a compelling interest in protecting fetal life.

According to Carpentier the transvaginal ultrasound unquestionably places an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.

Thus, it will be interesting to see what the court will do if a pregnant woman with the same sentiments challenges one of these state laws in the future as a unconstitutional exercise of state legislative power under the 14th Amendment.

What do you think?