Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Virginia 'transvaginal ultrasound' bill


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#1 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 06:47 PM

This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.

Well, I'm glad I'm not a woman.

Even better, the governor of VA (who has already said he's going to sign the bill) is the expected running mate for Mitt Romney.

I didn't post this in General Debate because who would agree with this Posted Image

#2 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4769 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 06:52 PM

What the heck? Can't they do an ultrasound of the fetus/vagina without sticking a probe in there? I think that's a little crossing the boarder there.
Well obviously they can, but why the need for penetration?

Edited by Adam, 16 February 2012 - 06:54 PM.


#3 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 06:55 PM

Do you guys not know how they do abortions?

#4 Ladida

Ladida
  • Night Owl 🌛

  • 2152 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:02 PM

Another slap in the face to women. This is completely unnecessary, what exactly are they trying to accomplish with this (other than shaming women)?

#5 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:06 PM

Do you guys not know how they do abortions?


Does that justify making mandatory a (medically unnecessary) blatant roadblock to abortion?

#6 Applepi

Applepi
  • 1641 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:07 PM

If I ever meet that man.... I'll perform a transanal ultrasound on him and see how he likes it. hmp

This is ridiculous especially since there is no actual medical purpose, other than trying to guilt the woman into keeping the baby. Also, I bet the procedure bill goes to the woman's house no? Another reason why politics and social issues should be separated.

#7 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:09 PM

Does that justify making mandatory a (medically unnecessary) blatant roadblock to abortion?


There is a lot that the medical examiner stands to gain by doing an ultrasound pre-abortion.

Like, for example, confirming that there is actually a fetus there and it's not just a false-positive pregnancy test.
Or ensuring that it's not an ectopic pregnancy.

Furthermore, this is basically like saying that it's a violation for your dentist to stick his fingers in your mouth before he goes in drilling. I don't see how this is a roadblock to abortions.

#8 Applepi

Applepi
  • 1641 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:12 PM

There is a lot that the medical examiner stands to gain by doing an ultrasound pre-abortion.

Like, for example, confirming that there is actually a fetus there and it's not just a false-positive pregnancy test.
Or ensuring that it's not an ectopic pregnancy.

Furthermore, this is basically like saying that it's a violation for your dentist to stick his fingers in your mouth before he goes in drilling. I don't see how this is a roadblock to abortions.


did you read the article? its not just about checking... its about documenting whether the mom agrees the witness/hear a heartbeat. its about shunning her through her medical records. its about a guilt-trip. You can do ultrasounds externally as well as perform other tests that prove pregnancy.

I would agree with you somewhat if it was only about the precautions, but in this case it is not.

#9 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:15 PM

There is a lot that the medical examiner stands to gain by doing an ultrasound pre-abortion.

Like, for example, confirming that there is actually a fetus there and it's not just a false-positive pregnancy test.
Or ensuring that it's not an ectopic pregnancy.

Furthermore, this is basically like saying that it's a violation for your dentist to stick his fingers in your mouth before he goes in drilling. I don't see how this is a roadblock to abortions.


Except if you read the article:

“I think it gives full information,” he said this week on WTOP radio’s “Ask the Governor” program. “To be able to have that information before making what most people would say is a very important, serious, life-changing decision, I think is appropriate.”

So the motive for this procedure is clearly to discourage abortion. Also, I invite you to procure some evidence that an ultrasound is necessary before having an abortion...

#10 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4769 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:21 PM

I got an ultrasound done on my heart, but they didn't have to stick anything up my non-existant vagina to see what was going on. They rubbed a gel on my chest and used to tool to see what the deal was. Can't the physician just use the same method as I got done on my chest/heart? Also, I don't know how abortions are done other then sucking the fetus out of the womb with a machine, or a 'claw'. Any further details will gross me out.

#11 Drakonid

Drakonid
  • 803 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:21 PM

did you read the article? its not just about checking... its about documenting whether the mom agrees the witness/hear a heartbeat. its about shunning her through her medical records. its about a guilt-trip. You can do ultrasounds externally as well as perform other tests that prove pregnancy.

I would agree with you somewhat if it was only about the precautions, but in this case it is not.

Did you read the article? It's a load of biased crap. I don't agree with the bill, but I don't have the medical knowledge to say whether it's reasonable or not, and I can tell that neither does the author.

#12 Applepi

Applepi
  • 1641 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:23 PM

I got an ultrasound done on my heart, but they didn't have to stick anything up my non-existant vagina to see what was going on. They rubbed a gel on my chest and used to tool to see what the deal was. Can't the physician just use the same method as I got done on my chest/heart? Also, I don't know how abortions are done other then sucking the fetus out of the womb with a machine, or a 'claw'. Any further details will gross me out.


Thats pretty much how my friend's ultrasound was with her baby. Though she was further that 12 weeks I believe.

#13 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:23 PM

did you read the article? its not just about checking... its about documenting whether the mom agrees the witness/hear a heartbeat. its about shunning her through her medical records. its about a guilt-trip. You can do ultrasounds externally as well as perform other tests that prove pregnancy.

I would agree with you somewhat if it was only about the precautions, but in this case it is not.


I am not going to read an impassioned article that is obviously slated against this bill and written to make it look worse to the public.

But I did however read the actual bill, which states:

Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman's medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed.


The woman has every right not to hear the heartbeat or see the image of the ultrasound.

Except if you read the article:

So the motive for this procedure is clearly to discourage abortion. Also, I invite you to procure some evidence that an ultrasound is necessary before having an abortion...


I did not say that it is necessary, I said that it provides useful information. Not all pregnancies occur in the uterus - some can happen in the fallopian tubes, the ovaries or even in the abdominal cavity. How would a woman feel going through a completely unneccessary normal abortion only to find out after she had recovered that she was still pregnant because the baby wasn't even inside her uterus? Not to mention the possible medical issues that could arise from an embryo being implanted somewhere extra-uterine.

#14 Applepi

Applepi
  • 1641 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:25 PM

Did you read the article? It's a load of biased crap. I don't agree with the bill, but I don't have the medical knowledge to say whether it's reasonable or not, and I can tell that neither does the author.


I didn't say I agreed with it and I realize its written in a biased manner. However based on the information that was presented, I was simply stating that a component of the bill seemed like it had nothing to do with precautions and more to do with trying to get the woman to not have the abortion...

Edited by Applepi, 16 February 2012 - 07:29 PM.


#15 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:26 PM

I got an ultrasound done on my heart, but they didn't have to stick anything up my non-existant vagina to see what was going on. They rubbed a gel on my chest and used to tool to see what the deal was. Can't the physician just use the same method as I got done on my chest/heart? Also, I don't know how abortions are done other then sucking the fetus out of the womb with a machine, or a 'claw'. Any further details will gross me out.


Your heart is the size of your fist. A 4-8 week old embryo is the size of a pea. It's a lot harder to see something on such a small scale with ultrasonic techniques unless you get pretty close.

Edited by nymh, 16 February 2012 - 07:26 PM.


#16 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:30 PM

I am not going to read an impassioned article that is obviously slated against this bill and written to make it look worse to the public.

I see what you did there. ;) Anyways, yes that is the purpose of editorization.

I did not say that it is necessary, I said that it provides useful information. Not all pregnancies occur in the uterus - some can happen in the fallopian tubes, the ovaries or even in the abdominal cavity. How would a woman feel going through a completely unneccessary normal abortion only to find out after she had recovered that she was still pregnant because the baby wasn't even inside her uterus? Not to mention the possible medical issues that could arise from an embryo being implanted somewhere extra-uterine.



I still don't see how that justifies such a specific (and invasive) procedure. There are more options for evaluation the state of a pregnancy beyond a transvaginal ultrasound. Especially considered in context of the entire bill, again it is clear that the health of the woman is not at interest.

#17 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4626 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:32 PM

I see what you did there. ;)


I am so glad you noticed! :hug:

#18 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:39 PM

So mandatory health insurance is right out, but requiring unnecessary medical procedures prior to a personal choice is in?

Hypocrisy. Pure hypocrisy.

#19 Leaf

Leaf
  • 372 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:48 PM

Do you guys not know how they do abortions?


No...

Edited by LeafMashes, 16 February 2012 - 10:49 PM.


#20 NapisaurusRex

NapisaurusRex
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴

  • 9425 posts


Users Awards

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:55 PM

It depends on the type of pregnancy. With the pill form for early termination, an ultrasound would be way out of line and overly invasive, since really the woman just has to take some meds. With D&Cs (and I believe D&Es), the woman is knocked out for the procedure. I would consider a transvaginal ultrasound prior to a woman being knocked out overly invasive, especially if she decides to not look. For the vacuum aspiration, usually there's just local anesthesia involved. However, if there's no reason to do it for the pills and a viable option to exclude the woman totally in D&Cs, then I don't think it's appropriate to do it for vacuum aspirations, either.

Edit: Found a source for procedures and terminology
http://www.americanp...procedures.html

Edited by Napiform, 16 February 2012 - 11:56 PM.


#21 Melchoire

Melchoire
  • 5284 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:52 AM

I'm not sure how this law works in the US. But wasn't there a ruling by the supreme court (Roe v. Wade I think) that made abortion legal everywhere?

#22 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:10 AM

What the heck? Can't they do an ultrasound of the fetus/vagina without sticking a probe in there? I think that's a little crossing the boarder there.
Well obviously they can, but why the need for penetration?


It's more accurate than a regular ultrasound which is pretty important in early pregnancies I think.

#23 zandra

zandra
  • 791 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:14 AM

This is seriously wrong, this procedure is unnecessary and it will torment women that is going for abortion even more with those pictures of the fetus =/

it is already a pretty hard decision to make to go for an abortion

#24 Kat

Kat
  • KatDog 5ever

  • 2098 posts


Users Awards

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:15 AM

I sure wish people would read the entire thread before posting. :)

The woman has every right not to hear the heartbeat or see the image of the ultrasound.

I did not say that it is necessary, I said that it provides useful information. Not all pregnancies occur in the uterus - some can happen in the fallopian tubes, the ovaries or even in the abdominal cavity. How would a woman feel going through a completely unnecessary normal abortion only to find out after she had recovered that she was still pregnant because the baby wasn't even inside her uterus? Not to mention the possible medical issues that could arise from an embryo being implanted somewhere extra-uterine.



I agree with nymh. It's a very informative procedure, so the doctor can know the age of the fetus. If it's a certain age they could just give her the pill, and also for detecting a pregnancy outside the uterus.
Honestly this article.. talking about "vaginal penetration," oh please. It can't be any worse than a pap smear, or the actual abortion itself. :/
However, I don't agree with it not being optional. At least require consent.
But I'd like to think after being properly explained to why it's being done, most people wouldn't disagree.. Why, yes I'd like to know if the fetus is growing inside my fallopian tubes, thank you for asking!
That's just me however..

#25 kittycat

kittycat
  • 633 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:34 AM

Furthermore, this is basically like saying that it's a violation for your dentist to stick his fingers in your mouth before he goes in drilling. I don't see how this is a roadblock to abortions.

Great dentist analogy, considering how abortions are often carried out... ew

Edited by kittycat, 17 February 2012 - 04:35 AM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users