Jivin J's Life Links 4-27-10

web grab.jpgby JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • Michael Bloomberg assured NARAL luncheon attendees that NYC would remain the abortion capital of the US as long as he remains mayor. He also called on President Obama to nominate a pro-choice individual to the Supreme Court.

  • What does it take for a government diplomat in Great Britain to lose his job? Apparently, quite a bit, because I'm struggling to imagine something stupider and more disrespectful than this:
  • Anjoum Noorani, 31, was the leader of the Papal Visit Team which drew up a document suggesting the Pope should launch his own range of "Benedict" condoms, open an abortion clinic and stay in a council flat in Bradford.

  • The OK legislature has overridden Gov. Brad Henry's veto of abortion-related bills.


  • Comments:

    Here's a compassionate mindset:


    "Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre, D-Tulsa, urged lawmakers to consider the rights of women.

    "We know this is wrong. Think about what we're doing if we do not sustain this veto. Remember it's our body not theirs," Eason McIntyre said. "It's nobody else's decision. If it's the wrong decision you live with it."

    Seriously, the only way she could sound harsher about the aftermath of abortion would be to say "Suck it up and deal."

    I'm so glad Oklahoma's getting rid of wrongful birth suits. Just the term "wrongful birth" is disgusting.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 27, 2010 2:43 PM


    Proud to be an 'Okie' right now! :)

    Posted by: Pamela at April 27, 2010 3:30 PM


    No plans to visit NYC any time soon. Abortion capitol? I'll take my dollars elsewhere.

    * * * *

    Posted by: Janet at April 27, 2010 3:31 PM


    I do find it scary that doctors can now WITHHOLD tests results from pregnant women. We may not agree with what how they react, but keeping them from the truth when they want to know is bad medicine.

    Posted by: Lily at April 27, 2010 5:50 PM


    Quick question - who pays for the ultrasound? (in regards to the Oklahoma law)

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 27, 2010 7:09 PM


    Ex-GOP Voter,
    Oklahoma legislature has not provided for public funds to be used for the provisions in the new law. If you want to view the law for yourself, it is OK HB 2780.

    Despite that, these women should have to have an ultrasound anyway to find out exactly how far along they are, and to screen for an ectopic pregnancy. Otherwise, as I've heard, the wrong procedure may be used, and women are often hurt or killed by it when the abortionists don't do an ultrasound.

    The new law also allows for women to be able to see that ultrasound, and not have abortionists hide the image from them, which, granted, doesn't always happen, but most of the time they do withhold it because viewing an ultrasound can change a woman's mind. Post-abortive women who see ultrasound images of a later pregnancy many times suffer emotional damage about what they had previously done, not having been shown the full truth.

    Making sure that an ultrasound is done prevents women from spending thousands on counseling later on in life, and prevents the abortion clinic from liability if they do happen to misdiagnose the type and gestation of pregnancy and end up hurting or killing the woman because of it. However, the new law provides that if a woman chooses to not view the ultrasound, neither she nor the doctor will be penalized.

    Therefore, who pays for the ultrasound is irrelevant even if the abortion is publicly funded, just because it is good medical practice to use an ultrasound anyway. Besides, the abortionist's office should already have an ultrasound machine, and it's not like that topical gel is expensive. Therefore, it really should have little to no effect on public funds if it is, in fact, funded publicly.

    Posted by: Amy at April 28, 2010 1:40 AM


    The ultrasound requirement, which calls for doctors to use a vaginal probe if it will result in a better picture of the fetus, actually violates Oklahoma rape laws, which includes the forced vaginal insertion of instruments for any reason -- and the new law forces women seeking a legal medical procedure to undergo a vaginal ultrasound. There is no exception for victims of rape or incest -- for whom such an exam would undoubtedly add to the incredible trauma of being forcefully impregnated.

    I thought that was bad enough, until I heard about the second law that protects doctors who lie to patients about fetal defects. If you've followed the comments on this blog for a while you might remember the story told by Cathy, who was pregnant as a young woman and was told by doctors that the child she carried was just fine -- but when her son was born he had birth defects and untreatable brain cancer. He lived a short and unspeakably painful life, the kind of pain most of us can't even imagine, pain that could have been prevented if she had been provided with the real facts about her child before he was born. She probably could have sued the doctor, but if this happened in Oklahoma after the new law was in effect, there would be no legal recourse.

    There are countless conditions detectable by ultrasound that are "incompatible with life" or are always fatal after a short and painful life. As parents we want to spare our children from pain and suffering, and many parents facing this scenario make the heart-rending decision to end pregnancies and prevent their children from having to experience that kind of pain and suffering. That a legislature thinks it's acceptable to protect doctors who lie to parents and take away their chance to make critically important choices about their child -- not just whether or not to terminate, but to seek out care for their child before birth, or to look at procedures that can be done in the womb to treat some birth defects, or to simply be prepared for what is to come -- it flabbergasts me that people think this is okay. Nothing can come from this law but pain and suffering. I'll be glad to see this one overturned, which it most certainly will be.

    Posted by: Violet at April 28, 2010 3:30 PM


    And you think ABORTING the child doesn't cause him pain and suffering, Violet?

    Posted by: Pamela at April 28, 2010 9:04 PM


    Actually Violet I read the first bill and it did not say vaginal ultrasound necessarily, just whichever one visualizes the fetus better. For early pregnancies they would do a vaginal, but this *should* be standard procedure for all pregnant women entering surgery- that is a health matter. Just like it's often necessary for women to get a pelvic exam every year for birth control prescriptions. It's not "forced" on them, it's just a part of the procedure. If a rape victim does not want anything else stuck "up there" then I don't think she would want an abortion which is far far far more invasive.
    However, it didn't go much into detail about what kind of speal the doctors would have to give so on that I can't say too much on that in particular

    Posted by: prettyinpink at April 28, 2010 9:12 PM


    Violet,
    Despite your objections to requiring vaginal ultrasound being preformed prior to providing an abortion, it is actually medical practice and important in verfying the presence of an intrauterine pregnancy (ruling out ectopic pregnancy) diagnosing the gestational age, the placental location, as well as any findings of abnormalities of the uterus, which may impact how the procedure will need to be preformed.

    Imaging Studies
    Ultrasonography is invaluable but not always used in first-trimester terminations. The standard of care demands that second-trimester terminations be evaluated preoperatively with sonography. Documenting uterine abnormalities is important because failed terminations can occur in patients with double uterus or ectopic pregnancies.

    •First-trimester sonography: The results of the examination are what is typically expected for a first-trimester screening examination. The focus is on fetal number, the size and nature of the gestational sac, the placental location, the uterus, and the ovaries. Document the presence and nature of a yolk sac.
    •Second- and third-trimester sonography: For second- or third-trimester abortions, performing an ultrasound preoperatively is the standard of care. Conduct these examinations like other second-trimester screening examinations. If anomalies are detected, women should be offered a referral for targeted examinations that can delineate specific fetal disease conditions. Not unusually, women decline further investigation if their abortion decision does not hinge on the specific findings.

    E-Medicine: Elective Abortion: Differential Diagnoses & Workup
    Author: Suzanne R Trupin, MD, Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois College of Medicine-Champaign; CEO and Owner, Women's Health Practice; CEO and Owner, Hada Cosmetic Medicine and Midwest Surgical Center
    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-diagnosis

    Also, endovaginal ultrasound with a transducer is prefered over the traditional abdominal transducer because it providers better imaging of the uterus, gestational sac, and ovaries.

    Clinical
    ◦Endovaginal scanning uses a high-frequency transducer and enables optimal imaging of organs close to the probe, including the endometrium, myometrium, cul-de-sac, and ovaries, which can be seen in detail with better resolution.

    Ultrasonography, Pelvic
    Author: Shoreh Kooshesh, MD, Resident Physician, Division of Emergency Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine
    Coauthor(s): Laleh Gharahbaghian, MD, Co-Director, Emergency Ultrasound Fellowship, Associate Director, Emergency Ultrasound, Clinical Instructor, Emergency Medicine, Stanford University Medical Center
    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/797240-overview

    Also, while I sympathize with concerns about vaginal ultrasound possibly triggering further rape victims, it's worth noting that victims of rape only compose less than 1% of abortions and are the exception, not the rule. However, if you consider a vaginal ultrasound invasive and triggering, consider that a surgical abortion is a considerably more invasive procedure and longer in duration.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 28, 2010 9:52 PM


    Pamela,

    I don't know enough about fetal development to answer your question with any degree of accuracy; however, if I had to choose for my own child, I'd choose a few minutes of pain over weeks or months (or even days) of pain followed by painful death.

    If my dog gets sick, and I know that he will not recover and will only suffer no matter what I try to do to care for him, I can choose a peaceful death for him that prevents all of that pain and suffering. We do this every day for animals, many of whom are as much a part of our families as children. Shouldn't our children be afforded the same kindness, the same humanity?

    Posted by: Violet at April 29, 2010 12:06 AM


    prettyinpink,

    Actually Violet I read the first bill and it did not say vaginal ultrasound necessarily, just whichever one visualizes the fetus better. For early pregnancies they would do a vaginal ...

    And the vast majority of abortions are performed during early pregnancy, where a vaginal ultrasound would be required to be done. Not because it's medically necessary or because the doctor can't see what they need to see in abdominal ultrasound. But in order for the pregnant woman to see the picture of the fetus clearer and for the doctor to better be able to enumerate the parts of the fetus and the stage of development.

    It's not "forced" on them, it's just a part of the procedure.

    It is forced on women who want abortions in early pregnancy. In order for women to access a totally legal and safe medical procedure, they are forced to undergo an invasive exam whether they or the doctor want it, whether there is any medical reason for it, and without exception for any circumstances.

    It's a bit like the new machines at airports that display a naked picture to TSA employees of every man, woman, and child that goes through security. It's invasive and it opens up every person who flies to abuse, particularly children. They're not stopping anyone from flying -- you just have to let strangers look at pictures of you and your family naked first.

    If a rape victim does not want anything else stuck "up there" then I don't think she would want an abortion which is far far far more invasive.

    Did it occur to you that if our hypothetical rape victim doesn't get an abortion, she's going to be giving birth, which means (unless she has a c-section) exam after exam where a doctor or midwife checks things like cervical dilation, painful contractions, and pushing a baby through the vaginal canal? As a rape survivor, just the thought of giving birth under even the best circumstances makes me physically ill. Compared to that, abortion seems the less traumatic choice. And that's aside from all the issues involved with giving birth to the child of the person who raped you.

    I'll get to these other comments tomorrow.

    Posted by: Violet at April 29, 2010 12:22 AM


    Violet is correct. If a woman is getting a D&C (first trimester abortion) an ultrasound is not necessary. For women getting a D&E (second trimester abortion), then it is common practice for a standard (not vaginal) ultrasound the day before or day of the operation.

    This OK law is a classic case of politicians playing doctor and overriding the best practices already established by doctors and their peer-reviewed studies. Politicians are not doctors. Therefore, they should not interfere with procedure regulations such as this.

    Posted by: Dhalgren at April 29, 2010 7:23 AM


    Mayor Bloomberg is a lot of things. He's a bit arrogant. He's temperamental and cranky. He bought the office. He spends two weekends per month at his walled mansion in Bermuda (clearly he's not worried about airspace being closed while he's away playing golf).

    But despite all of his faults, he will go down in history as the most pro-abortion mayor in US history. And thank goodness. He required, in his first term, that all medical students, interns, and fellows at city-owned hospitals either learn or observe both D&C and D&E procedures (D&E's are done in an OR while the patient is under anesthesia). This was mandated so that future doctors would know how to manage a miscarriage or perform an abortion. This taxpayer-funded policy helps keep the medical practice alive for the next generation.

    I think some day, NAF is going to have to present an award to Bloomberg for his historic policy decision. He and another American billionaire have done more to defend abortion rights than most living US politicians.

    With at least three hospitals in NYC performing well over 50 D&Cs and 10 D&Es each per week, I am proud to live and work in the nation's abortion capital. Even if abortion was made illegal tomorrow, it would still be performed in NYC. We will never, ever let the medical practice die.

    And please don't visit us. European tourists keep us afloat year-round. A stroll through Times Square would expose you to the voices of Italians, Germans, Russians, French, Spanish, and British people. And I think those countries don't have fierce fights over abortion. Over there, it is a settled issue. I wish it was settled here as well, but too many politicians in the middle of the USA think that restricting access to healthcare is a noble cause. But as the citizens of places like Oklahoma and Nebraska will soon learn, restricting access to Family Planning services only harms poor women. The wealthy women who want to terminate their pregnancy can still go to big cities like LA and New York.

    Posted by: Dhalgren at April 29, 2010 7:45 AM


    Violet is correct. If a woman is getting a D&C (first trimester abortion) an ultrasound is not necessary. For women getting a D&E (second trimester abortion), then it is common practice for a standard (not vaginal) ultrasound the day before or day of the operation.
    Posted by: Dhalgren at April 29, 2010 7:23 AM

    And, how precisely does one verify that it is a first trimester and not a second trimester abortion without doing the ultrasound? Dating from LMP is a guess, at best and can be wrong. In fact, it is not uncommon for women to have what is called "breakthrough bleeding" that they think is a period and therefore their dates are off by an entire month.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 29, 2010 10:50 AM


    "But as the citizens of places like Oklahoma and Nebraska will soon learn, restricting access to Family Planning services only harms poor women."

    Dhalgren,

    That's only if no one helps these women. There are plenty of women and men in OK and NE who will go the extra mile so abortion is not done in desperation. (They're at the WRC's and CPC's that pro-aborts love to demonize.)

    You might as well call a spade a spade.
    Family planning services = abortion.


    Posted by: Janet at April 29, 2010 11:24 AM


    And, how precisely does one verify that it is a first trimester and not a second trimester abortion without doing the ultrasound?

    Oh, I think doctors have devised a clever solution from the 19th century. They first ask the patient when her last period was, and then they estimate the age of the fetus. If the patient has no clue when her last period was, then of course, an ultrasound machine can be brought into the exam room. But doctors are pretty apt at estimated fetal age. And most women know the exact date they had unprotected sex which resulted in the pregnancy.

    Posted by: Dhalgren at April 29, 2010 12:46 PM


    You are really dense, aren't you? LMP is NOT a reliable method for determining gestation, especially when you're in the hmmmm, is it 11 or 13 weeks? category (which means the difference between first and second trimester).

    First of all, many women have irregular periods. Secondly, not all women ovulate at the same time in their cycle. Oh, and for that matter, a woman's cycle can be anywhere from 21 to 45 days in length. Yet, all doctors use the same calculation which can easily be off based upon those simple factors. Add in the fact that many women have breakthrough bleeding (you completely ignored the fact that I wrote this in the previous post) and think that the breakthrough bleeding is just a lighter than usual period... which can easily throw off the calculations.

    So, again, ultrasound is the only reliable way to date a pregnancy. LMP is an estimate only.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 29, 2010 3:18 PM


    "But doctors are pretty apt at estimated fetal age. And most women know the exact date they had unprotected sex which resulted in the pregnancy."

    Posted by: Dhalgren at April 29, 2010 12:46 PM

    Did you know that approx. 50% of abortions are due to unplanned pregnancies from FAILED CONTRACEPTION? Are you under the impression that abortions are only a result of a couple "forgetting/neglecting" to USE BC?


    Posted by: Janet at April 29, 2010 4:47 PM


    "As a rape survivor, just the thought of giving birth under even the best circumstances makes me physically ill."

    Unborn children are unable to rape. Quit making them pay the price for the evils in our world.

    With all due respect Violet, it sounds like you could definitely benefit from some mental health counseling in order that you don't project the anger you have towards your rapist(s) onto innocent others.

    Posted by: Praxedes at April 29, 2010 6:25 PM


    Interesting discussion.

    I think the main point I'm taking out of it is that talk about the government mandating medical practices can be agreeable to folks on both sides of the aisle - so when it comes to health care reform, it sure seems like in some cases, the right is okay with the government dictating procedures.

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at April 29, 2010 8:01 PM


    Unborn children are unable to rape. Quit making them pay the price for the evils in our world.

    Of course! THAT'S why I'm pro-choice -- I blame fetuses for the fact that I was raped when I was 6. Wow. You TOTALLY got me. Gee, I think I'll run right down to one of the local CPCs and sign up to volunteer!

    Seriously, is it so hard for you to believe that a person can be pro-choice because we think it's right that you have to jump on anything I say and turn it into my secret reason for being pro-choice?

    With all due respect Violet, it sounds like you could definitely benefit from some mental health counseling in order that you don't project the anger you have towards your rapist(s) onto innocent others.

    Actually, I don't need counseling, because your psychoanalysis has helped me figure everything out. Thanks!

    Sarcasm aside, thanks for the concern, but how I deal with my past and whether or not I have, need, or want to see a shrink isn't really any of your business. Besides, you don't think I know that some counseling would help without you needing to tell me?

    But again, I don't blame fetuses for the fact that I was raped, and there's no connection between my personal traumas and my strong conviction that women should have the right to choose, and that their options should include abortion.

    I can't wait to hear your next theory, though. Since no private insurer will give me coverage, your pop-psychology could save me a TON in out of pocket therapy costs!

    Posted by: Violet at April 30, 2010 12:24 AM


    Finally, I hit the nail on the head of why you advocate the killing of innocent humans. Whew!

    Someone else on Jill's site has used the quote, "Hurt people, hurt people."

    Violet, you are part of the "hurt people group" whether you ever want to talk with someone about it or not. Taking the initiative in doing the hard work that it will take to fully recover from a childhood rape is the first step. You will know when you are fully recovered, because you will be an advocate for Life and you will stop advocating for the killing of unborn humans.

    There is help but you are not showing much tolerance or respect by using the word 'shrink' to refer to fellow humans in the helping professions.

    Rest assured, you will never be charged for the therapy you receive from me. As far as I know, none of the other beautiful prolifers on Jill's site charge for psychology sessions either.

    You've come to the right place.

    Posted by: Praxedes at April 30, 2010 5:38 PM


    Finally, I hit the nail on the head of why you advocate the killing of innocent humans. Whew!

    Um, I was being sarcastic. Thought that was obvious...

    You will know when you are fully recovered, because you will be an advocate for Life and you will stop advocating for the killing of unborn humans.

    I'm still not seeing the link here. How exactly does me being "fully recovered" (whatever THAT means) translate into magically changing sides on this issue? Are you still thinking that because bad stuff happened to me as a kid, I have some kind of vendetta against fetuses?

    There is help but you are not showing much tolerance or respect by using the word 'shrink' to refer to fellow humans in the helping professions.

    It's not a word I normally use. But it seemed to fit the sarcastic tone I was trying to put into my comment (looks like I failed). Sorry about that.

    You've come to the right place.

    Did I miss the big "Sexual Abuse Survivor Support" banner? Because I kind of thought this was a blog about abortion. Seems like some right-er places would be communities of people who have been through similar experiences and know a lot about what the process of dealing with that trauma is like. Actually, I have a feeling a lot of people would be a bit upset if I started posting long graphic comments all about the abuse I suffered. Because this is a blog about abortion, not sexual abuse.

    Okay, that came out a little snide. I do appreciate your intentions and thank you for your concern. But I'm going to continue to do what is right for me when it comes to dealing with the past, and if you want to check back in a few years I'm pretty certain you'll find that where I'm at with that trauma doesn't have any relationship to my strong conviction that women have a right to choose when it comes to pregnancy, and that one choice that needs to be available is safe and legal abortion (up to the point of viability), along with adoption and keeping the child.

    Posted by: Violet at April 30, 2010 5:58 PM


    "Are you still thinking that because bad stuff happened to me as a kid, I have some kind of vendetta against fetuses?"


    Yup.

    Posted by: Praxedes at April 30, 2010 7:54 PM


    Yeah, okay. Whatever. Believe what you want, but you're still wrong.

    Posted by: Violet at April 30, 2010 11:04 PM


    Violet-
    If death were a certainty you're argument would still not hold because their is something about our humanity that needs to know that we are loved and cared for. So if an infant is going to die what better place to die than in the arms of his or her mother. Because it's not o.k. to assume that we are at the mercy of death. We have the opportunity to pray. For those who have no religious beliefs as humans we have the power of love. So to kill a baby in the womb is to say I have no God or if an agnostic it is saying I have no power. The very fact that we are human gives us the right to love and be loved. And part of love is to fight for what is part of you.

    Posted by: myrtle miller at May 2, 2010 9:37 PM