Show me the money
by Valerie Ryan
A Miami Heraldstory is about abortionists being legally required to show a women an ultrasound picture if she wants to see it. It is not required otherwise:
“Rep. Joyce Cusack, a Democrat… noted that not every abortion clinic has ultrasound equipment and those that do will have to charge patients more to offer the procedures.
Opponents of the measure said the procedure could cost a woman as much as $700, while supporters said the cost would likely be less than $100.”
What I find interesting is that crisis pregnancy centers manage to do them for free.
Another thought, how do these people verify gestational age, without the ultrasound, to make sure the safest procedure is being performed?
Apr.08, 2008 8:56 am |
Industry watch, Ultrasound |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I read that 80% of women who see an ultrasound decide to keep their babies. That’s bad for the abortion business, no?
If we are all for “informed choices” then why the problem with ultrasounds?! Mmmmm…because there is no denying the truth of that baby seen on the screen. The humanity of the unborn is crystal clear. Women would SEE and KNOW.
I was not given an ultrasound before my abortion. They calculated a due date and estimated my baby’s age. They guessed 8 weeks. I was 11.
What I find interesting is that Crisis Pregnancy Centers manage to do them for free.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The CPC down the street from my workplace has the crappiest, most ancient ultrasound equipment on the planet, and the woman running it has no formal medical training. There’s no law mandating that she HAS to have any training. (I’m tempted to tell them I’m pregnant, have someone else’s urine tested to confirm it, tell them I’m contemplating abortion, and have this chick give me an exam just so I can hear what she has to say…)
If the patient knows that she’s less than 10 weeks pregnant and doesn’t want an ultrasound, why make her have one? What’s the point?
I support this. If a woman wants to see an ultrasound she should be able to and she should be able to for free. From someone who actually knows what they are doing.
Carla how do you know you were 11?
Someday when I am wealthy I am going to make sure every CPC has ultrasound equipment! 4D even!
The point Laura is The Truth. Believe it or not there are women who do NOT WANT an abortion but see no other alternative. Their minds can be changed when they see their baby.
The abortionist would have to do an ultrasound but a woman can choose not to look at it.
I calculated it for myself years later.
What I find interesting is that Crisis Pregnancy Centers manage to do them for free.
CPCs have been cleaning up on the abstinence-only federal grants.
What percentage of CPCs actually offer sonograms? I don’t think it’s that high. And since most CPC’s don’t have the expense of trained medical staff, it’s probably easier for the ones that do have ultrasound machines to provide the sonograms for free.
The point Laura is The Truth. Believe it or not there are women who do NOT WANT an abortion but see no other alternative. Their minds can be changed when they see their baby.
The abortionist would have to do an ultrasound but a woman can choose not to look at it.
Posted by: Carla at April 8, 2008 9:55 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Women who don’t want to have abortions don’t have them. It’s just that simple.
Why would you mandate unneeded medical procedures?
I didn’t want an abortion.
Please explain.
Laura,
You’re just itching to get those babies killed, arn’t you? What kind of person are you?
Gee Jasper, I don’t know anyone who’s ever killed a baby, and I’ve never promoted baby killing.
I have a real problem with unneccesary medical tests. I realize that physicians have been forced by litigation to perform them, but the last time I had foot surgery, my insurance company had to pay for; a food allergy panel, a treadmill test, X-rays on the same-side knee and hip that the doctor never ordered, and a bone-density test (I was a well-fed 38 at the time.)
All in all there was over $1000.00 spent on pointless diagnostic work that nobody wanted.
(This story is easily bested by my friend Patti, who was ordered to have a complete set of those 360-degree dental X-rays before her hysterectomy. I wish I were kidding…)
Another reason to perform an ultrasound:
Abortion mills should make sure the pregnancy is even viable. Up to 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, so abortion mills could very well be charging women for a procedure that is completely unnecessary and putting them through unnecessary grief.
Sandy, I had a friend who was going to get an abortion but a few days before she was scheduled to go in she miscarried. She says it was the stress of the unplanned pregnancy. I think it would be better if a person was definitely going to abort to do it as early as possible anyway rather then wait to see if they miscarry.
I think my friend was just acting on what her body was telling her. She knew, and her body knew, she wasn’t ready for a baby.
Another reason to perform an ultrasound:
Abortion mills should make sure the pregnancy is even viable. Up to 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, so abortion mills could very well be charging women for a procedure that is completely unnecessary and putting them through unnecessary grief.
Posted by: Sandy at April 8, 2008 10:53 AM
Ya know…oddly enough, I agree with Sandy. An ultrasound to confirm that a viable pregnancy is present prior to the abortion procedure makes sense to me. Although…some women elect to have a D&C after fetal death is confirmed by ultrasound to avoid having to deal with miscarrying at home, so it may not really be less expensive in the long run.
“I think it would be better if a person was definitely going to abort to do it as early as possible anyway rather then wait to see if they miscarry.
Posted by: Jess at April 8, 2008 11:09 AM”
Somehow I am creeped out by that statement. Maybe just me.
Why are you creeped out? Should I have said, “wait until you’re almost past the legal point so the abortion is riskier for you and the chance of the baby (still developing inside of the womb at this point) feeling pain or being born alive?
The point about the ultra sound is that it allows a woman to make a informed decision. She can see for herself what it is she is terminating. And it would likely discourage the abortionist or clinic staff from telling a woman she has a blog of cells or whatever else, because the image on the ultrasound screen is that of a tiny baby. That is assuming that the technician would remain unbiased and simply present the information shown on the screen, identifying the parts of the baby and showing the beating heart, placenta etc.
Of course, since abortion clinics have never been into full disclosure, I doubt very much they;d go for this.
Laura –
What part of “show a women an ultrasound picture if she wants to see it (it is not required otherwise)” is confusing you?
I’ll spell it out for you.
Seeing an ultrasound picture is NOT madated or required by law. IF the woman WANTS to see an ultrasound picture the abortionist cannot deny her one. That is ALL this law is.
Abortionist are REFUSING ultrsounds that the women WANT!
Also, Many CPC’s now have ultrasounds. They do not have to be top of the line nor does a professional need to be the one doing it. Why? Because they are not used for medical diagnosis. they are used just to see the picture. The machine does not have to be top of the line to do this. This is all the abortionist would need to do if the woman wants to see a picture.
That said – I find it very disturbing that clinics don’t have ultrasounds considering the different methods used for gestational age so the safest procedure can be done. How many times have we argued on here that a woman messes up her due date, or didn’t know she was pregnant when she was….etc. I know a woman who had her period for the first three months of pregnancy and because of her weight didn’t even show until 6 – 7 months pregnant. Having a period the first month of pregnancy happens more than we think. How are the abortionist making sure the safest procedure is being performed?
so much for abortion being as safe as possible. Goodness knows we wouldn’t want some of the profit PP or any private clinic gets every year to go to updating the clinics with appropriate equipment.
Laura, I am shocked that you can insist that there is no medical reason to NEED an ultrasound before an abortion. You are very misinformed.
For starters, it is VITAL to confirm the gestation of the pregnancy, even if a woman *thinks* she knows her LMP. I work at a Crisis Preg. Center that offers ultrasound. Just yesterday we had a client who gave us her LMP (last menstral period) and was determined to be about 6weeks pregnant. We gave her an ultrasound …. and low and behold …. she was almost 17 weeks. This happens quite often, as women can commonly have 1st trimester bleeding which is often mistaken for a period, throwing her dates all off.
If an abortion clinic had performed a suction abortion on this woman thinking she was 6weeks ….. BIG PROBLEM! Or worse, what if they gave her RU486 pill since her dates showed less than 49days …. that could have resulted in massive blood loss/ hemhorraging … very dangerous.
So (1), they NEED an u/s to confirm gestation and determine the “best” method to kill her baby.
And (2), an u/s is necessary to rule out ectopic pregnancy. If the preg. is ectopic and they perform an intrauterine suction abortion, then the ectopic pregnancy continues to grow and could KILL the woman. If she does not die, then the ruptured tube will “just” result in massive blood loss and lifelong fertility problems.
(3) An u/s is also needed to diagnose any other conditions which may require extra care or a modification to the abortion procedure. A woman with a bicornate uterus, for example. Or a woman with a retroverted uterus. There are others too which I am not thinking of at the moment. If these conditions are not recognized BEFORE the abortion is performed, then the abortion could be ineffective and need to be repeated, or it could cause complications and endager the health of the woman.
Any abortion clinic which does NOT perform an ultrasound on EVERY SINGLE WOMAN who walks in the door as a standard part of her “care” is really playing russian roulette. On top of killing her baby.
One clinic I’m aware of actually uses u/s DURING the suction abortion so that the “dr” is not going blind. Then they us u/s AFTER the abortion to ensure that all of the baby has been successfully removed and there are no retained fetal parts.
Also … for whoever was complaining that CPC’s use outdated equipment and untrained staff …. at the Center where I work our machine was DONATED, so no it is not brand new and I’m sure it’s not the most high-tech available. But it is only a few years old and it’s very nice. And what Valerie said is correct, it is not a diagnostic ultrasound, so it doesn’t need all the bells and whistles. It’s only purpose is to confirm a VIABLE, INTRAUTERINE PREGNANCY (meaning rule out ectopic, molar, etc and confirm a heartbeat); verify gestational age; and then to allow the mother to see a true picture of what is growing inside her.
And quite the contrary assuming that those operating the machines are “untrained staff” … at my clinic we have 3 CERTIFIED ULTRASOUND TECHNICIANS who perform all our ultrasounds. They are overseen by a local obstitrician who serves as our medical director. All of our u/s techs are VOLUNTEERS, which is why we are able to provide this service for free. Two of them work in dr’s offices during the week and volunteer on their day off. The third used to work in an ob’s office but recently took time off to have her own baby, so she volunteers with us one day a week.
They are dedicated MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS and are very qualified ultrasonographers.
What I find interesting is that Crisis Pregnancy Centers manage to do them for free.
It’s not a stretch to see how it’s possible.
Focus on the Family began Option Ultrasound Program in 2004 and invested $4.2 million (that year) to pay for training and ultrasound equipment for CPCs.
By December 2007, 363 ultrasound machines were placed in centers and trainings were held in 48 states.
Other organizations, like the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates and Heartbeat International collected $731,000 (2006) and equipped 460 affiliates with ultrasound machines, respectively.
Some CPCs use federal funding.
Kristi, while I agree all abortion providers should do an ultrasound (for the reasons you mentioned) before an abortion, some of the proposed laws force the woman to view the images. This is the practice I believe is wrong, particularly because some CPCs have been found to show incorrect images (fetuses further along in development, for example) and play the sound of the heartbeat in an effort to dissuade women from getting an abortion. The doctor should not attempt to force his political or religious views on his or her patient.
Also, some ultrasounds have been done by unqualified technicians. While your clinic may not be one of them, many others have unqualified people conducting an abortion (including some hospitals) which can lead to malpractice suits for failing to diagnose serious conditions within the fetus. Again, this is important for both the child and the mother, so that unnecessary complications do not arise as a result of failure to properly read a sonogram.
Edyt: The doctor should not attempt to force his political or religious views on his or her patient.
Yes, but hiding the truth is not advised either.
Edyt:
Obviously, you cannot read. Let’s try this again:
This story is about abortionists being legally required to show a women an ultrasound picture if she wants to see it (it is not required otherwise).
Now, granted I am not a trained journalist, but even I can tell the difference between the above statement and:
some of the proposed laws force the woman to view the images.
Now, unless you can back that up…the only one’s being FORCED to do anything are the ABORTIONISTS who are REFUSING to show ultrasounds to PATIENTS who ASK for them.
Any questions?
What “truth” Janet? If a woman doesn’t want to see the ultrasound, she shouldn’t be forced to. End of story.
I don’t want to go to a doctor only to find out he’s a Christian Scientist and won’t give me my asthma medication. His political and religious views do not trump my decision on my personal health as a patient.
Hooves, thanks for being rude. In actuality, the story is not about women legally being able to view an ultrasound. It’s about the new law that passed that requires ultrasounds to be done in all three trimesters of pregnancy and how that law came into place. It does note that women would have to sign a consent form to NOT see the results, which I find questionable. Why must she sign a form to NOT see it? Why not have her sign a form TO see it? It’s very questionable. Will these women be told they can opt out of viewing the results?
There is a pro-life fantasy that by making a woman see an ultrasound, she’ll be less likely to get an abortion.
I believe this law was passed in hopes that women who don’t know they have the right not to see the ultrasound will be forced into seeing something they don’t want.
And Hooves, if you reply to this message by shouting and insulting me, I won’t bother to clarify any of my statements and will instead encourage you to educate yourself on matters you don’t quite understand.
A baby (being recently ferilized as an egg with a sperm and attaching to the uterine lining inside of the uterus and currently remains there) at say two weeks really is just a blob of cells. If a woman at four months doesn’t know a baby (being not recently but about a month or more after ferilized as an egg with a sperm and attaching to the uterine lining inside of the uterus and remains currently there) is developing inside of her I’m actually kind of nervous to be giving her a baby (already born so outside of the uterus and unattached to the mother via a placenta and unbilical cord)because something like that is bascially common knowledge. Like don’t feed a newborn pretzels.
“Their minds can be changed when they see their baby.”
Carla, what baby are you reffering to? They can’t see the child after it has been birthed out of the mother, so that won’t work.
Edyt,
the analogy about going to see a doctor for asthma is not relevant.
Going to see a doctor about a condition involving YOUR body is fine – you can make those decisions – it’s your body.
A pregnant woman, by nature of her biology and that of her unborn baby, will be making decisions that will affect both the baby and her body. For this reason she can’t use crack cocaine or drink heavily during the pregnancy.
An abortion is procedure that has profound consequences for both patients,especially so for the baby who stands to lose his life. Ultrasound gives her full informed consent and makes sure that she KNOWS exactly what it is she is doing to her baby and herself. I think women should also be EXPLICITLY told the exact procedure that will be used on her. When my mom had open heart surgery to replace a mitral valve years ago, the surgeon explained EXACTLY what would be happening to her body and also used a heart model to explain everything. The reason: my mom had a good chance of not surviving the procedure.
Ignorance is no excuse.
No ultrasound- no abortion.
Women who see their baby on an ultrasound. Some women change their minds and continue their pregnancies. They choose not to abort.
Amen Patricia 2:36!!
And Hooves, if you reply to this message by shouting and insulting me, I won’t bother to clarify any of my statements and will instead encourage you to educate yourself on matters you don’t quite understand.
And once again you prove my point that you are the most self-righteous and sanctimonious person on this board.
I just call them like I see them, if you can’t read then at least try to make sense. Oh, your proof to back up the claim that laws are on the books that force women to view their ultrasounds is where?
Typical. I think it
“…and the woman running it has no formal medical training. There’s no law mandating that she HAS to have any training.”
—————————
Laura, you’re dissing the CPC because they may have an untrained person doing the Ultra-sound?
What about abortion clinics which are NOT medically-regulated like any normal clinic/ hospital should be?
If the CPC person messes up, nobody dies. If the abortion clinic messes up…2 people at a time could die.
Do you know this for certain? I get the feeling you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and simply want to spew a selfish power agenda that leverages uncertain and often shameful circumstances of women.
I sit on the board of a CPC and we just went through a medical review. What you are saying is flat out wrong.
There are strict guidelines in place for operation of medical diagnostic equipment, which requires a continuous practice and supervision of a state-licensed ob-gyn physician as medical director. Further the whole operation must run under the management of a licensed RN who is qualified under that particular equipment. Any diagnosis of pregnancy is declared by the physician – which is requirement of the state. That’s also the first state mandated identification of a new human being – the unborn.
All staff that deal with medical equipment are paid professional nurses and the cost is actually considerable and on-par with rates within the region.
There are numerous states, (Massachusetts and New York, among others) where the bar for ultrasound operation is absolutely no different than a full medical clinic, (as opposed to a medical office).
Our medical director is a former abortionist, who by the grace of God realized his grevious sin, has come to a saving knowledge in Christ and is now fighting the scourge against the unborn.
From our experience, when women (and partners) know all the information they overwhelmingly choose life.
The days of treating the unborn as discardable property or “blobs of cells” are numbered.
I find it very illuminating that those in the abortion camp LOVE to paint us as anti-women
Given your criteria Jess, I guess you don’t see people on TV. ;-)
BTW – Have you ever seen an embryoscopy? That’s when a fiber-optic video feed is inserted through the cervix, to take actual video of the unborn. I’ve seen the video from the team at Yale University of a 9 week old who shielded his eyes when they put on the attached light. It’s absolutely amazing!
Oh yes – it also demonstrates quite clearly what a D&C via suction aspiration is doing – killing an unborn child.
Women who don’t want to have abortions don’t have them. It’s just that simple.
Are you going to sit there and say, with a straight face, that nobody ever does anything they don’t want to do? Or is abortion an exception somehow?
IMO, ultrasounds should be required in any facility dealing with pregnancies and the mother should be encouraged to see them, in order to make the most informed decisions possible.
Abortions aren’t legitimate medical procedures; they are murders, so they should not be legal anyway. They misuse some medical equipment, knowledge and credentials in order to target and destroy innocent non-combatant humans, much like the 9-11 terrorists misused legitimate flight skills for the same purpose; the victims were just older. (well, most of them…).
That said, there are several reasons why pregnant women should be demand, and at least be allowed, if not required, to see ultrasounds of their babies, especially if they are dealing with people who make most of their money killing babies. One is that abortionists do lie about gestational ages of the baby, and when they do, their concern is never for the woman. They will sometimes say the baby is older because later term abortions bring them more money. Then there was the Alabama case a few years ago where a mid-term mom was told she was 7 weeks along, so non-medical staff could try to kill her baby with RU-486. And, speaking of taking your boyfriend’s urine in for a test just to see what the staff will tell you, several “safe & legal” death mills have been found selling abortions to women with negative pregnancy test results by investigators using just that method.
Oh, and Voldemort – er, Laura – speaking of crappy, ancient, substandard ultrasound equipment reminds me of one abortionist (i’m sure he wasn’t the first or the last) who did not have any ultrasound equipment in his office. Surgical abortion induced vaginally being the blind operation that it is, he was thus unable to locate his preborn targets and often mutilated the women instead, mistaking their various organs for the baby, since they were in the same general vicinity. A number of women were injured and killed by his negligence, and the medical board of at least one state in which he maimed and murdered investigated the hellhole he called a “clinic”. When they discovered he had no ultrasound machine, they demanded that he get one and put his license under suspension until he “complied”…by getting a used, cheap, crappy, ultrasonic dinosaur which did nothing but collect dust and lull the authorities and lure more victims into his lair. He continued to maim and kill more women and slaughter more children until he was finally shut down on a particularly egregious case of neglect of a woman who was bleeding to death from one of his “safe & legal” abortions.
Chris A., all the CPCs in my area have ultrasound machines. They’re not all 4-D, but they all do what they’re designed to do and, unlike the one purchased under duress by the aforementioned ex-abortionist, they all get used regularly. And praise God for your medical director! I would love to meet him/her sometime.
Hey, Chris,
Is it possible to access that video – is the footage up anywhere on the Internet?
And Chris, it sounds like your CPC is better equipped than an abortion clinic (what am I saying – of course you would be, you’re there to HELP the patients, not kill them….)
Slow down folks…
Is anyone else seriously creeped out by the idea of a pro-lifer suggesting a law which:
“This law will say abortion is okay, so long as the mother is offered the chance (not forced) to see an ultrasound, even if she never sees it. This will not in any way prevent her from having an abortion if she still wants one, even if she waives her right to see an ultrasound. Nor will it in any way suggest that abortion is wrong. It simply insures the mother has access to both sides of the story. She can make up her relativistic mind about whether abortion is wrong, or not. If she chooses in a way that I think is wrong, she retains her right to abort, of course.”
Sorry — that’s too “pro-choice” for me.
That’s too pro-abortion for me.
Let’s not get (correction: let’s not stay) in the business of affirming abortion rights, even “if it saves just one life.” Let’s consistently affirm the Right to Life, which by its very definition means that Abortion Is Always Wrong!
Anything else confuses the public, setting back by years and years that day when we can finally say every child will be protected from abortion. I want that day soon, not years from now, after we’ve gone through 25 steps (over 25-50 years) of incrementally ending abortion, and explaining to the “moderates” of the general public at every step that we’re now against that form of abortion which was not a targeted part of our strategy just one or two years before.
I read a story in the Battle Ground, Washington newspaper in 2003, where the reporter had investigated the local PP. She found they were doing ultrasounds to convince the women it is just a blob of tissue. The only problem was they were doing the ultrasounds on the liver or the kidney.
Anon,
That’s horrible!!! How PP of them, though! LOL!
What are they so afraid of with the woman or girl SEEING the ultrasound pictures? This doesn’t make any sense to me at all!
“Supposedly”, they feel that the women or girls are making an INFORMED decision, which is a tough decision, one that is usually made before going in. What’s so bad about more information for the mother??? I also thought nobody WANTS abortion to happen, and PC’ers want an end to it as well. So, please, can any PC’er tell me what the fear here is??? It’s just a picture of “a blob of tissue” that the mother will see before she aborts it. What’s so bad about that?
“Given your criteria Jess, I guess you don’t see people on TV. ;-)”
*Head tilt* I don’t understand what’s going on, I’m confused and disoriented. Our dinning commons caught fire today, so no dinner tonight and just pizza tomorrow because it’s not open tomorrow either. I need whole grains, fruits and vegetables!!!! My head hurts I can’t think.
I have had conversations with escorts at our local PP and they will plainly state that they WILL NOT EVER show an ultrasound image to a client. So I tell women going in that they will not be allowed to see it and they come out again and tell me I was right.
Wow, you protest at a crazy clinic. I was offered the chance to see my ultrasound. I guess they’re all over the place on this issue, but every woman I know who’s had an abortion has either had the ultrasound viewing offered to her or has had it given upon request. I live in New York state; I’m not sure if that has something to do with it.
Anyway, obviously I think there is legitimate medical reason to perform an ultrasound before an abortion. I have no problem with doctors offering women the chance to view it, honestly — I’m generally of the mind that if a woman’s decision is so shaky and trembling that the mere offer of a picture of an ultrasound will change her mind, then she probably didn’t really want the abortion, so great! “Change” her mind, you’ll be saving her the trouble of realizing 20 years down the road that she made the wrong choice. The last thing anyone — pro-life or pro-choice — wants is for women to regret their abortions. That said, I don’t think that women should be required to view ultrasound pictures, and I don’t think that there should be any different protocol (ie signing forms etc) for women who choose to view or not view the ultrasound.
Robert, quite right!
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that if a woman gets an ultrasound and then says, yeah, I know. I still want the abortion – that I would be alright with this.
Abortion is always wrong, especially for the baby!
At least, though, seeing her baby on the screen may make a difference. At least, one would hope!!
I’ve seen the video from the team at Yale University of a 9 week old who shielded his eyes when they put on the attached light. It’s absolutely amazing!
Perhaps he seemed to be sheilding his eyes, but are you sure that was a reflex? According to Discovery Health…
Sense of Sight in the Womb
Vision is the last sense to develop. In utero, eyelids remain closed until about the 26th week in order for the retinas to fully develop. Around week 26, the eyes open and even begin to blink! At birth, a baby’s vision is perfectly focused from 8 to 12 inches.
As soon as their eyes open in the womb, twins seem to have no trouble locating each other and touching faces or holding hands.
Just as the womb isn’t completely quiet, it isn’t totally dark, either. As early as week 18, when the eyes are still closed, a baby’s retinas can detect a small amount of light filtering through a mother’s tissue if she’s out in the bright sun or under strong lights. By week 33, the pupils of the eye can now detect light and constrict and dilate, allowing your baby to see dim shapes. Studies shining a bright light on the belly of a woman at 37 weeks have shown a baby’s heart rate speeding up in response, or the baby turning toward the light.
I’ve looked for other resources that indicate sensitivity to light and the earliest I’ve found is 16 weeks.
If his eyes aren’t developed enough to react to light, why would he shield them?
Edyt:
From the website Science for Unborn Human life (http://www.sfuhl.org/k_appendix_2.htm)
under the link about development of the eye on the above page, it states that by the 9th week the nerves from the retina to the brain have been established. I would suggest that this means that a baby would likely be able to react to the very bright light attached to a fiber optic device. The eyes close or are closing at 9 weeks,but the muscles of the eye have formed and the nerve cells of the retina are present.
Patricia, I don’t think you were really responding to my post, given the nature of your response… but I do believe there’s nothing wrong with telling a woman what the procedure is and doing an ultrasound.
I think those a perfectly legit medical practices, and I encourage them.
What I have a problem with is forcing someone to hear it, or see the ultrasound results. And I feel the same about any procedure… if I say I don’t want to hear how my heart transplant is going to happen, then the doctor shouldn’t tell me! If I don’t want to see my chest x-rays, then he shouldn’t show me!
I think the confusion comes in with the way Valerie worded the story… which sounds like the law is in place because doctors were refusing to show patients their ultrasound results. That’s not what the article is about.
The article is about the bill that was passed, which is what I have a problem with. Check out the wording: After nearly two hours of debate and questions, the House voted 70-45 to require doctors to perform an ultrasound any time a woman seeks an abortion and make the results available for review unless the woman signs a paper refusing to see it.
That last part is problematic because it allows clinics to prey upon women who want to get abortions but don’t know their legal rights.
I don’t believe a woman should have to sign a form to not see her results. I believe it’s acceptable to have an ultrasound performed, and THEN have the doctors be required to ask the patient whether or not she would like to see the results.
Do you see how it looks a little one-sided? All I’m afraid of is that the woman will not know (and not be informed) that she has the right to not view her results and thus be forced into seeing them.
I hope this has clarified my position. And again, I don’t just feel this way about ultrasounds, but any medical procedure. The patient should have the right to refuse to see their results.
Ahhh, interesting! Thank you for the link! That’s exactly what I was trying to find.
Patricia, I don’t think you were really responding to my post, given the nature of your response… but I do believe there’s nothing wrong with telling a woman what the procedure is and doing an ultrasound.
say what?
Edyt:
What person would go into a major medical procedure not knowing what it entails and the risk? I simply can’t imagine it. If this is the case, then women should be made to sign away all rights to sue should something go wrong, since they chose to have this procedure without bothering to assess the risks….?????
As I stated before, ignorance is no excuse. Maybe along with all the birth control info we give men and women, maybe they ought to be obliged to have a course in the development of the unborn child as well. You know, just so they know what might be one of the consequences of their “choice”……
Patricia,
Thank you for standing up for Life, and I know you mean well when you support things like this. It really sounds like it would be a good, pro-life law.
But what I’m suggesting is that there are unintended consequences to supporting such a law. While it may “save” some babies, this law, by affirming the woman’s supposed “right to choose” may actually condemn far more thousands or millions of babies to death over the next many years. By giving in to the thinking of abortion as “a right” or as something we can regulate, pro-lifers actually make abortion more palatable and “clean” in the minds of the public, which may mean their outrage will be less (it WILL have this effect with voters, psychologically, same as with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban).
A law like this also strengthens the regime of “elective abortion” because it presumes that the woman (or her doctor) has a “right” to make the decision to kill an innocent human being so long as she’s looked at an ultrasound, or even if she scoffed and just signed the paperwork.
Pro-lifers should never be in the position of supporting legislation which either affirms a woman’s “right” to decide to have an abortion, or says that it’s permissible if they meet certain conditions.
It’s like saying Jews can only be killed Monday through Friday — sure, it “saves” some Jews, but the M-F killing may continue for decades because people feel better about the restriction.
Again — I understand where you’re coming from. But I think you and many pro-lifers are missing the unintended negative consequences of these feel-good regulatory laws.
Well, my boyfriend had an appendectomy and wasn’t informed of the “procedure.” He knew (in general) what was going to happen — the doctor was going to remove his appendix. Well, something went wrong and he ended up with an infection and in the hospital for an extra month or two. He now has a really long scar across his abdomen. Would he have chosen not to have the appendectomy if he knew what would have happened? Probably not… I mean, his appendix was infected and he could have ended up a lot worse off.
Similar to abortion, all most people want to know is that the fetus will be removed, and they don’t care how it happens or if they get an infection later on. I’m not saying I agree with that point of view, but I understand some people do get grossed out by surgical procedures and don’t want to hear about it. And some people have already made up their minds and just don’t want anyone using any evidence to try to change it! That’s their choice though.
And you’re right, ignorance is no excuse. I do believe people should know about the developing fetal body and that should be part of their decision as to whether to have the abortion.(In fact, I’m in favor of fetal development as a part of sex ed!!)
But… you can’t force people to learn, and that’s unfortunate…
Oh, and Patricia, when I said you weren’t responding to what I wrote, I meant your 2:36 PM post. Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn’t expecting you to respond so quickly to my other post!
Edyt: And some people have already made up their minds and just don’t want anyone using any evidence to try to change it!
Especially the truth, that’s awful.
I agree with you completely Robert. I don’t actually support this as a law – that is a woman wouldn’t be able to get an abortion unless she had an ultrasound or that ultrasounds should be mandatory.
I’m totally against abortion in any circumstance.
“Pro-lifers should never be in the position of supporting legislation which either affirms a woman’s “right” to decide to have an abortion, or says that it’s permissible if they meet certain conditions.”
I agree.
Of course I’m from Canada and we don’t have ANY law restricting abortion in any manner. So almost anything is better than what we have up here.
BTW,Is there a link to the video you spoke about earlier?
Janet, well, I don’t know what you mean by “the truth” but there are lots of things people make their minds up about and don’t want evidence to change it.
Mac users, for instance, seem to be under the opinion that macs are the greatest computers to ever hit the planet Earth, while in reality, other manufacturers have created better computers… however, mac users don’t want to hear the evidence because those macs are just so pretty looking, you know?
“Mac users, for instance, seem to be under the opinion that macs are the greatest computers to ever hit the planet Earth, while in reality, other manufacturers have created better computers… however, mac users don’t want to hear the evidence because those macs are just so pretty looking, you know?”
Hush Edyt! Macs are the best and they are sexy little machines! :D
PP requires all patients be offered an opportunity to view the ultrasound. There are always patients who decide abortion is not the right choice or who we send away because we aren’t convinced they are sure, the rate of patients leaving is not increased among those who choose to view the ultrasound or request a copy of the picture. Ultrasound is not a necessity prior to surgical abortion or a D&C performed for gynecologic reasons – if the uterine size is consistent with the examination of what is aspirated one can be assured the procedure is complete. Ultrasound is required prior to any medical abortion.
Patricia said
Actually, Steve Wagner of Stand to Reason shared the video with us at a banquet, and then I reviewed it several times later. I imagine some abortion-choice advocates here doubt the veracity of the video, but Steve and Stand to Reason are very well respected when it comes to being a witness for Christ. Steve is quite willing to concede legitimate points in arguments if he’s proven wrong and he’s even gained a good deal of respect from abortion rights groups.
That said, I don’t expect to see the video posted to the Internet, not because it’s not legitimate, but because it opens the potential to mocking misuse. STR is aware such things.
Steve speaks at banquets and combines the video together with a powerful and thought-provoking message. Highly recommended.
Mac users, for instance, seem to be under the opinion that macs are the greatest computers to ever hit the planet Earth, while in reality, other manufacturers have created better computers… however, mac users don’t want to hear the evidence because those macs are just so pretty looking, you know?
Posted by: Edyt at April 8, 2008 9:31 PM
Macs are the best computers and I don’t use one. From the whole virus thing, to pod casts to Garage Band, they’re awesome. But here I sit on this PC dinosaur because I have yet to master the Mac. (Or pry it from the grip of my kids.)
I agree they’re great for their graphics and virus software, but if you really want to get good virus protection all you need is something more like Linux. The problem is not the make of computer, the problem is that Windows is a terrible operating system.
And of course, other computers can be modified or built for graphics… again, that’s not reflective of the computer model, but people seem to equate macs with the superior capability and virus protection. (But Apple’s advertising is so great no one knows it’s a myth!)
PP requires all patients be offered an opportunity to view the ultrasound.
Not the one in my town. Got it straight from the horse’s mouth.
Edyt:
Mac users, for instance, seem to be under the opinion that macs are the greatest computers to ever hit the planet Earth, while in reality, other manufacturers have created better computers… however, mac users don’t want to hear the evidence because those macs are just so pretty looking, you know?
I agree they’re great for their graphics and virus software, but if you really want to get good virus protection all you need is something more like Linux. The problem is not the make of computer, the problem is that Windows is a terrible operating system.
And of course, other computers can be modified or built for graphics… again, that’s not reflective of the computer model, but people seem to equate macs with the superior capability and virus protection. (But Apple’s advertising is so great no one knows it’s a myth!)
Are you a computer sales person, or what? Own a lot of PC stocks?
Apples do have great virus protection, which is a great thing to have. I know very little about computers, but I don’t think advertising all that has carried the Apple Brand over the years.
Do you have an opinion on hybrid cars? Just curious?
I don’t want to go to a doctor only to find out he’s a Christian Scientist and won’t give me my asthma medication. His political and religious views do not trump my decision on my personal health as a patient.
Are there any Christian Scientist doctors? Be realistic. Unless you live on the South Pole, I don’t think you’ll have trouble finding a different doctor if you had to. I don’t think anyone’s rights should trump another’s rights to practice their religion as they wish. If we start forcing doctors to do that, who is to say they won’t start substituting placebos for the real thing if their conscience won’t let them hand out abortion pills. Isn’t it a better idea to just let those who object refrain from dispensing them?
Janet, haha, no I’m not a computer salesperson. My father is a computer consultant and I get all my computer/science nerdiness from him.
And I don’t know much about cars, but my main worry about hybrid cars is the alternative fuel they will use. For example, if we use corn to fuel our cars, that will drive up the price of corn. It may not be a good idea!
Are there any Christian Scientist doctors? Be realistic. Unless you live on the South Pole, I don’t think you’ll have trouble finding a different doctor if you had to. I don’t think anyone’s rights should trump another’s rights to practice their religion as they wish. If we start forcing doctors to do that, who is to say they won’t start substituting placebos for the real thing if their conscience won’t let them hand out abortion pills. Isn’t it a better idea to just let those who object refrain from dispensing them?
The problem is that then the patient’s rights are being violated. I respect your right to practice your religion, but when your religion infringes upon my rights, then it’s gone too far. And I don’t want to waste several hours at the doctor’s only to find out he or she won’t give me the medication I need. We don’t really have a system in place that tells patients at the door what their doctor believes and how they will treat you accordingly.
And I don’t want to waste several hours at the doctor’s only to find out he or she won’t give me the medication I need.
It’s not a “need”, it’s a desire to control. No patient’s “rights” are being violated by not being able to get something they “desire” but do not need. There is no “medical need” for abortion.
No doctor or pharmacist should ever be forced to dispense something that is not medically necessary, which they feel is harmful to their patient. Or their patient’s child.
Edyt: We don’t really have a system in place that tells patients at the door what their doctor believes and how they will treat you accordingly.
That’s a very good point. Perhaps patient should voice their requirements to their primary care physicians or OBGYNS at their first meeting, to make sure they and their doctor make a good match “philosophically”. When you think about it, the dignity of human life in all of its forms is a philosophical in addition to a religious one. In other words, you don’t have to be religious to recognize the dignity of human life. There are pro-life atheists after all.