In the latest effort to tighten Idaho's parental consent laws, legislators are proposing a bill that would force doctors who perform abortions to first ask their patients if they want to see their ultrasound images.

The bill passed the House Ways & Means Committee Tuesday and is now headed to the House Health & Welfare Committee for further debate.

Dr. Julia Bouchard is a local obstetrician who does not perform abortions, but she does do ultrasounds everyday. She says the legislation is not necessary.

"Women are already torn when they make these decisions, and there's no need for the law to dictate what doctors and patients do in their confidential relationship," she says, adding some patients seeking an abortion need an ultrasound, while others do not.

The Idaho Women's Network agrees.

"We think it's perhaps insensitive or cruel for women who may be terminating pregnancies because there's either severe fetal abnormalities or continuing the pregnancy would put the woman's life or health at risk," says Marty Durand, the network's executive director.

The bill's main sponsor, Rep. Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls, says forcing doctors to at least give women the option of looking at their pictures can empower them to make a more informed decision.

"This bill is all about hope. It's all about faith. It's all about life. The numbers are showing that the women who actually see a picture of their unborn child are choosing life," McGeachin told CBS 2 Eyewitness News.

Dr. Bouchard responds, "I don't' think we need pictures in order to make our decisions especially of our own bodies. Just like when you're making a decision on a surgical procedure or any other kind of procedure, we don't necessarily need to have pictures in order to do that."

Regardless, the bill is now making its way into the Health and Welfare Committee, where proponents will argue the measure can save lives.

"The intent behind the continued efforts is simply to give women better information," McGeachin says.

Previous efforts to limit abortion rights have cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation fees, but McGeachin says the attorney general's office has indicated this particular bill is constitutionally sound.