Rape by ultrasound?
Yesterday an OK judge delayed for 45 days enactment of a new law mandating that mothers get ultrasounds before abortions. This will allow the 2 sides to get their arguments in order to defend or oppose it.
OK’s ultrasound law goes farther than others. According to the Associated Press…
The law requires doctors to use a vaginal probe, which provides a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound, and to describe the fetus in detail, including its dimensions, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity.
That’s sloppy journalism, if not intentionally biased. The law actually requires either the abortionist or “certified technician” to “[p]erform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly….”
The “vaginal transducer” distinction is what drives this legislation further than others, making it critical to this conversation. It is different in probe placement than abdominal ultrasounds of which we’re all aware:
Creative Minority Report adds, “I’ve seen the term ‘invasive’ used to describe the ultrasounds dozens of times in the past few days.” Yes, and here the AP calls it “intrusive.”
The other side is arguing this is “rape by instrumentation.” At least one argues the new ultrasound law is literally “legaliz[ing] rape” by countermanding OK’s rape statute that indeed includes “rape by instrumentation.”
Gov. Brad Henry originally vetoed the law (which was overridden) stating, according to the AP, “‘it would be unconscionable to subject rape and incest victims to such treatment’ because it would victimize them again.”
Of course, pro-lifers have argued forever that abortion is violent and akin to rape. Dr. David Reardon writes (in the best article on rape and abortion ever):
Abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back time to make a woman “un-pregnant.” Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic….
[M]any women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape. This association between abortion and rape is not hard to understand.
Abortion involves a painful examination of a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. If she protests and asks for the abortionist to stop, she will likely be ignored or told: “It’s too late to change your mind. This is what you wanted. We have to finish now.” And while she lies there tense and helpless, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity.
This experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong for many women. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not she is presently pregnant as the result of an assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than other women.
The difference, according to Oklahoma Voice of Reason, is that a mother doesn’t give consent to the former but does the latter.
But there is no comparison between a benign ultrasound probe and a painful abortion that is actually akin to rape on so many levels, as Dr. Reardon described.
Pro-aborts trivialize rape by making such a comparison, and they also draw attention to that which is actually “rape by instrumentation,” the invasive and violent abortion procedure.
Giving one’s consent to abortion does not erase its trauma. Women with breast cancer may give consent to have a breast removed, but that doesn’t erase their trauma.
It is shameful for the other side to consider abortion a panacea for traumatized and vulnerable rape victims.
This is another losing argument for the other side.
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.
And the insertion of a suction cannula during the abortion is what?
The insertion of a speculum during a follow-up exam is what?
It would be nice if the MSM printed the descriptions of the pain induced by a suction that is 16x more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner.
this is basically informed consent. She is not required to look at the ultrasound.
Sixteen times more powerful than a carpet vacuum? *instinctively crosses arms around uterus*
If women are having abortions, they’re getting something inserted into their vaginas anyway – and past their cervixes and into their uteruses. How would a vaginal transducer be any more invasive?
People have to deal with all sorts of informed consent forms and information for most other surgeries. If abortion is “just another medical procedure,” this just makes sense.
I thought abortion advocates were all about women getting things rammed into their nether regions. They don’t object to the penis ramming. That’s “sexual liberation”. They don’t object to speculum ramming, dilator ramming, tenaculum ramming, cannula ramming. It’s only the vaginal ramming that might lead a woman to recognize the humanity of the baby she’s slated for death that they suddenly object to. Oh THAT kind of vaginal ramming is bad.
I had an ultrasound once using a vaginal transducer. It wasn’t painful or anything… a speculum is more uncomfortable than a vaginal transducer. It was a little odd (I had never had one before) but not so bad. The only real problem would maybe be for a woman who has been a rape victim in the past. And it is my understanding that women who are sexual assault survivors and then get abortions say that their abortions were like getting raped all over again.
In my view as a woman (and as a rape and child sexual abuse survivor)… I think something as invasive as an abortion would really bother me. And I’m not saying that because I think abortion is 100% wrong, but just as a woman thinking of a doctor (most likely a male one who obviously is not my husband) jamming all kinds of sharp instruments into my vagina, cervix, then uterus. That sounds very much like a violation to me, not to mention dangerous.
Now coming from the aspect that abortion IS wrong – let us suppose that a woman is a rape victim and has become pregnant as a result. I totally understand the horror/shame and the feeling of wanting to “get rid of it”. However, these are irrational thoughts. The woman needs therapy, not infantacide. Although my children were not conceived in rape, I can say that having an infant around really helped me with my own depression problem. They just bring so much sunshine into one’s life, despite the hard work and interrupted sleep at night. The child is not a burden but a gift. And if she still feels she does not want the child, it can be a blessing to someone else’s family. It is not right to punish a child for the wrong actions of his/her father.
“I thought abortion advocates were all about women getting things rammed into their nether regions. They don’t object to the penis ramming. That’s “sexual liberation”. They don’t object to speculum ramming, dilator ramming, tenaculum ramming, cannula ramming. It’s only the vaginal ramming that might lead a woman to recognize the humanity of the baby she’s slated for death that they suddenly object to. Oh THAT kind of vaginal ramming is bad.
Posted by: Christina at May 4, 2010 7:14 AM”
Hahahahaha! Love it! I’m SO with you on this one!!!
The pro-aborts must operate under the delusion that a woman recovers from rape in less than 9 months. So she must kill her baby to avoid being reminded of the rape. Because she must get over it as quickly as possible. So what if now abortion nightmares adds to rape nightmares?
Anyone who has had the misfortune to endure both traumas can tell you, rape is eventually healed from, but abortion’s regret lasts a lifetime.
Agreed, Ninek.
Needless to say,most abortionists are men, so they are looking at women’s wombs as a goldmine! To quote former abortionists Brian Finkel [incarcerated for raping, molesting, fondeling, and kissing at least 100 abortion patients while on his table] Also, he jerked one woman hard down into the stirrups and hiked her gown up while calling her a “whore”!! Finkel once bragged “Back in the day, I could open up a woman in 5 minutes.” “I’d worked many other floors, but it wasn’t until I worked on the abortion floor that I fouund out that women will do ANYTHING to get an abortion!” …Empowering?? nly for a male abortionist.
sorry for all the typos above
I’m from Oklahoma and, up until they started talking about this recently, I had never even HEARD of a ‘vaginal probe ultrasound’. I’ve had I don’t know how many ultrasounds done for various reasons, and not ONE of them was a ‘vaginal probe’. They did a detailed ultrasound of my daughter when I was pregnant, but it was STILL just an ‘abdominal’ ultrasound. I also used to be a volunteer at a CPC and they had an ultrasound machine..but it was just your ‘standard’ (abdominal) machine.
I had a vaginal ultrasound with my son because I was only 5 weeks pregnant (7LNMP) and they couldn’t pick him up on an abdominal ultrasound.
The sensation was weird…its hard and plastic and uncomfortable but not at all painful.
I saw my son with his head and arms and legs and his beating heart and I began crying because I was overwhelmed thinking “THIS IS MY BABY!” and the ultrasound tech was afraid she had hurt me. She was very professional and gentle. It isn’t like rape at all.
Don’t women want all the facts and options before they do something they can never take back?
My experience was the same as yours Sydney, it was so early in the pregnancy that they couldn’t see him properly with an abdominal ultrasound. It wasn’t painful at all, not even as uncomfortable as a regular pelvic exam. And like you, the joy of seeing my little guy for the first time was overwhelming!
The other side is arguing this is “rape by instrumentation.” At least one argues the new ultrasound law is literally “legaliz[ing] rape” by countermanding OK’s rape statute that indeed includes “rape by instrumentation.”
That’s a bit far reaching considering that ultrasounds are medically indicated and standard medical practice in the first trimester to verify and date an intrauterine pregnancy, and to rule out ectopic pregnancy.
I had one with one of my miscarriages. So heartbreaking listening and looking for a heartbeat and not seeing or hearing it. :(
On another note,
How in the world would they enforce this? Like abortionists are following the letter of the law now anyway? Think Live Action…..
It is my understanding that, with almost any kind of abortion (in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s ALL abortions) an ultrasound is necessary during the procedure in order to locate the fetus and be sure that all the lil torn limbs and stuff is removed. Since most abortions are 1st trimester abortions, it’s very probably that a vaginal ultrasound is necessary in order to see anything during the process.
I’ve never heard of anyone having a problem with this!! So why are they suddenly panicking now?? Makes absolutely no sense, unless you’re smart enough to realize that they are full of crap. The only problem they really have with it is LESS WOMEN WILL WANT ABORTIONS AFTER SEEING THIER BABIES!!
It is my understanding that, with almost any kind of abortion (in fact, I’m pretty sure it’s ALL abortions) an ultrasound is necessary during the procedure in order to locate the fetus and be sure that all the lil torn limbs and stuff is removed. Since most abortions are 1st trimester abortions, it’s very probable that a vaginal ultrasound is necessary in order to see anything during the process.
I’ve never heard of anyone having a problem with this!! So why are they suddenly panicking now?? Makes absolutely no sense, unless you’re smart enough to realize that they are full of crap. The only problem they really have with it is LESS WOMEN WILL WANT ABORTIONS AFTER SEEING THIER BABIES!! $$ WILL WALK OUT THE DOOR.
The only problem they really have with it is LESS WOMEN WILL WANT ABORTIONS AFTER SEEING THIER BABIES!! $$ WILL WALK OUT THE DOOR.
Posted by: Karen at May 4, 2010 1:36 PM
**************
Bingo.
I had a vaginal ultrasound to determine the due date of my first child. Actually, I found it easier on my bladder than the typical ultrasound where they had to press on my stomach when I really needed to “go”! :D
Not usually…
??? seriously, wtf
Nope, try again.
I was at the laundromat with Alison this morning and somebody turned on “The View” (trust me, I wouldn’t have watched it by choice.)
Behar insisted that she had had an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy (that’s not an abortion). And Sherry (sp?) whoever she is said that she had had two and she is against this law because it would have made it too hard for her to go through with the abortion by forcing her to see that it was a baby, that she was working hard to ignore that fact.
Um… isn’t that kind of the point?
And she kept repeating that no one had a right to tell her what she could and couldn’t do to her body. Love my kid, she was standing next to me folding laundry and muttered under her breath… “Yeah, well since it’s somebody else’s body that’s a stupid thing to say!”
Off to finish packing. That’s got to be the worst part of moving…
I thought Sherri was supposed to be a “Christian.” Guess she’s another one of those who’s bought so many lies, she’s not sure what one is supposed to live like anymore… Sad.
Maybe Gerard would like to go on The View and set the record straight.
Gerard?
:)
In the case of an unemancipated minor who cannot legally give her consent to engage in sex, then the abortion procedure itself is ‘rape by instrumentation’.
I have to confess I am uncomfortable with the government forcing me or anyone else to submit to an intrusive medical examination.
I understand the good intentions behind the law but it reminds me of an IRS audit.
Posted by: Christina at May 4, 2010 7:14 AM
Sounds like you are describing bumper cars or demolition derby.
Or the implementation of b.o.’s hellth scare scam.
Posted by: Austin Nedved at May 4, 2010 2:50 PM
“Abortion [like rape,] involves a painful examination of a woman’s sexual organs by
a masked stranger
who is invading her body.”
—————————————————
Boy that ruins the William Tell overture, Hi Ho Silver and the Lone Ranger for me.
“Our work is done here Tonto.” [what?!?!]
What ever happened to ‘truth, justice and the american way’?
To argue that abortion is not an invasive medical procedure is silly. But in early pregnancy, when a vaginal transducer does indeed yield a more complete picture of the fetus, the Oklahoma law makes this ultrasound, which is indeed invasive, mandatory. The rest of the abortion procedure is something that is voluntary. When it yields a better image, a vaginal ultrasound is not voluntary. It’s forced upon women regardless of whether the doctor thinks it’s necessary, regardless of whether it’s medically indicated, regardless of whether the woman wants it done. Even if both doctor and patient agree it is wholly unnecessary and would only be traumatic for the patient, it has to be done.
I’m anticipating the response, “If you don’t want the vaginal ultrasound, just don’t get an abortion.” Let me draw a parallel to another invasive regulation that’s being forced on people every day: the use of full body scanners at airports that allow TSA agents to see people naked. Don’t want yours or your family’s nude images displayed for any employee to see? Don’t fly. Even though the full body scan is only imposed on people who choose to fly (out of certain airports, the number is growing), the full body scan itself is not voluntary.
But let’s go back to the question at hand. A lot of people here have stated how invasive and traumatic an abortion can be, especially for a victim of rape or incest. If abortion is invasive, what do you call giving birth? Having a doctor, nurse, or midwife repeatedly inserting their hands to check your cervix; repeated pelvic exams; painful contractions; and finally (at least for vaginal births) pushing an up to 9 or 10 pound infant through the vaginal canal. How is that any less traumatic for a rape or incest victim? Does the fact that you’re giving birth magically make the trauma go away so you forget all about it? No way.
Yes, I know that there are a few women out there who have become pregnant because of rape or incest, and who had their babies and raised them with love and care (or gave them up for adoption). Some women are able to do that. Some women aren’t.
Anyone who has had the misfortune to endure both traumas can tell you, rape is eventually healed from, but abortion’s regret lasts a lifetime.
I haven’t had an abortion, but I have talked to many, many survivors of rape and incest of all ages and at all stages of life. A few might be lucky enough to consider themselves “healed,” but in my experience, the trauma never goes away and rarely gets to a place where it could be called fully healed. The trauma of rape can and often does last a lifetime, especially when it’s followed by procedures like the one Oklahoma is forcing on women that only serve to increase the trauma’s effect.
The only problem they really have with it is LESS WOMEN WILL WANT ABORTIONS AFTER SEEING THIER BABIES!! $$ WILL WALK OUT THE DOOR.
That must be awfully fun and satisfying to say, but you’re completely wrong. Opposition to this law has nothing to do with trying to keep women from seeing ultrasound images. And it has absolutely nothing to do with money or profit (not even going to get into the whole Planned Parenthood/abortion profits thing again, if you’ve heard it before there’s no reason to repeat myself). It’s about a legislature mandating that doctors perform and patients undergo a medical procedure regardless of whether it’s medically necessary. Opposing this law has very little if anything to do with abortion; it’s about the right of patients to consent to the care that they want, and the right of doctors to make the determination of what procedures are needed by their patients. This is a patients’ rights issue. Period.
Violet – let me repeat some of your own words back to you:
I haven’t had an abortion, but I have talked to many, many women who’ve had abortions of all ages and at all stages of life. A few might be lucky enough to consider themselves “healed,” but in my experience, the trauma never goes away and rarely gets to a place where it could be called fully healed. The trauma of abortion can and often does last a lifetime.
So how will an abortion make a rape victim’s life any better?
Can I assume that since rape/incest accounts for only 1% of abortions, you would fully support an ultrasound being done with the other 99% of attempted abortions?
You really should read some of these stories, if you’re not too close-minded to explore other points of view.
So how will an abortion make a rape victim’s life any better?
A pregnant rape victim has two choices: abortion or giving birth. Each woman who faces this terrible situation has to make that choice. In terms of the trauma, neither will “make her life any better.” It’s up to each woman to decide which trauma she is strong enough to endure.
Can I assume that since rape/incest accounts for only 1% of abortions, you would fully support an ultrasound being done with the other 99% of attempted abortions?
No. If you read my whole comment, I said that the core issue here is the Oklahoma legislature taking the decision of whether to use a vaginal probe or do an abdominal ultrasound out of the hands of doctors and patients and mandating I consider on any woman to be an invasive procedure, especially when the woman has no choice in the matter. Neither does her doctor — even if the ultrasound required by law is not medically necessary and the doctor does not want to perform the procedure, he or she can’t say no. They can no longer decide with the patient what is right for that patient.
To me, this is a patients’ rights issue. Its effect on rape and incest victims is the worst part of it, but its impact on a whole group of women and doctors is almost equally bad.
You really should read some of these stories, if you’re not too close-minded to explore other points of view.
I’ve actually read most of the stories on this page, which I’ve been referred to before. The women whose stories are told there and who chose to give birth to children conceived in rape are examples of incredible, strong people who (in most cases) had the right to choose how they reacted to a difficult trauma. I’m grateful that their stories are out there and that much good has come from their decision. I’m also grateful that facing such hardship, they had a choice.
The fact is that the ultrasound is already being done because it has to be done to show gestational age, placental location, location of the pregnancy, and find out if there are any abnormalities that may affect the procedure. If an ultrasound is not done, it is bad medical practice, and the woman could be injured or she could even die because something went wrong.
It’s just that many abortionists refuse to let these women see the screen, even when they ask to see it.
This law is just making sure that the abortionists are following procedure and doing an ultrasound, looking for abnormalities, and making sure that women are given the choice to see the ultrasound.
Therefore, your “rape” issue doesn’t even come into play here, because the ultrasound should already be done. If it’s not, then the abortionist is a bad practitioner, and I wouldn’t doubt that there are many injuries and deaths that abortionist’s office. Ultrasounds and/or ex-rays are done before ALL major procedures to screen for abnormalities. Abortion should be no different.
Just to clarify, I’m not insensitive to issues of sexual abuse. When I was in grade school, one of the kids in my class sexually assaulted me, many harassed me, and nothing was done about it. I just don’t see common medical practice that should be done as something that you cry rape over. I would expect a doctor to use proper medical protocol when preforming a procedure on me. I would be concerned if an ultrasound and/or x-ray weren’t done, no matter the procedure.
The legislature isn’t MANDATING the use of the vaginal probe. The choice to use a vaginal or abdominal transducer would be a medical decision, most likely based on how far advanced the pregnancy is. I’ve had several early ultrasounds and only ONE used a vaginal transducer – it was when I was miscarrying the first time and it was so early that they HAD to use it. It was so early in that pregnancy that most women wouldn’t even have known that they were pregnant yet, particularly if they weren’t expecting/trying to be (I was actively TTC so I was keeping track of ovulation and pregnancy-testing early and at regular intervals).
Posted by: Violet at May 4, 2010 9:43 PM
“Let me draw a parallel to another invasive regulation that’s being forced on people every day: the use of full body scanners at airports that allow TSA agents to see people naked.”
—————————————————-
vilest,
My wife recently returned from a trip to Canada.
The TSA actually gave her at least there options.
1. She could choose not to fly.
2. She could choose to submit to the fully body imaging.
3. She could choose to submit to a full body ‘pat down’ by a TSA agent.
But that little detail aside, the government has, not just a compelling interest, but a responsibility to ensure the safety of the flying public.
Your comparison of the body scan, used by the TSA to check for banned items, to the intrauterine transponder exam, is at least a lemons to limes analogy.
The TSA would have to require would be flyers to submit to body cavity search for your analogy to work.
Personally I have no problem consenting to the TSA scan if it will minimize the chance there will be a bomb totin, jew hatin mass murderin muslim on the same plane with me and the rest of the non-terrorist flyin public.
But if you are content to fly with the Osama bin laden and his band of butchers then, by all means, you go right ahead.
Give em a big hug from me so you will get the full effect of the blast when she/he detonates his/her and your express ticket that new reality.
Maybe she/he will view you as show of good faith or apetizier on that 72 virgins deal for which he/she is a hopin.
Allah akbar baby!
Personally I have no problem consenting to the TSA scan if it will minimize the chance there will be a bomb totin, jew hatin mass murderin muslim on the same plane with me and the rest of the non-terrorist flyin public.
You may be willing to sign over your rights and freedoms because someone in the government says that these scans will prevent another 9/11. But I’m not. And your statement that the scan is optional doesn’t jive with reports from passengers who chose not to undergo the full body scan. Some TSA screeners appear to be working hard at making the alternative security screening as uncomfortable and unpleasant as possible. A few links on this subject:
http://www.businessweek.com/idg/2010-03-08/travelers-file-complaints-over-tsa-body-scanners.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042802743.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2215687
I also want to point out a couple of problems with your comment.
— If the scans are optional, they won’t prevent people from bringing potentially dangerous material onto a plane. As long as someone can hide something on their person well enough to pass the pat-down, they’ll still get on the plane.
— You choosing to go through the scan will only protect you (and the rest of us) from yourself. Whether or not you’re willing to hand over your rights has absolutely no bearing on whether a terrorist gets on a plane with a bomb.
— A full body scan only protects us against terrorists if they have a weapon or bomb in their pocket or on their person, and if they consent to a scan, which would make them a pretty stupid terrorist. It’s not like the scan technology is a secret.
Anyway, thanks for this comment — it fits oh-so-neatly into my mental picture of what kind of person you are. Especially that line about hoping I get killed in a terrorist attack (including tips for making sure I get blown up). Priceless.
Personally I have no problem consenting to the TSA scan if it will minimize the chance there will be a bomb totin, jew hatin mass murderin muslim on the same plane with me and the rest of the non-terrorist flyin public.
You may be willing to hand over your rights because someone in Homeland Security or the TSA says it will prevent another 9/11, but a lot of people aren’t, including me. That’s aside from the fact that you going through the full body scan will only protect you (and the rest of us) from yourself.
In order for the scanners to stop an attack, the terrorist(s) have to be carrying the weapon on their person, and consent to going through the scan. As long as they can pass a pat down inspection, they will still be able to get on the plane. The only terrorists the scanners will stop are the ones that lack intelligence and common sense.
As far as the scan being optional, there have been a number of reports from passengers that some TSA agents are putting people who opt out of the full body scan through intrusive and extensive security checks and screenings. The TSA has already received dozens of complaints from passengers regarding the scanners and the way TSA agents are conducting the scans. It seems to be a common occurrence that passengers are never informed they have a choice about going through the scanner.
Some of the complaints are from parents concerned about images of their children without their clothes being displayed to TSA agents. If a parent doesn’t want their kid to be scanned, they have to consent to a full pat down procedure plus whatever secondary screenings the TSA agents want to do. If you’re in the park with your kid and a stranger comes up and starts “patting down” your kid, you call the cops. If the stranger is a TSA agent at a security checkpoint, parents are supposed to just forget about it. TSA agent is now the perfect job for a sex offender.
By the way, thanks for your comment — it definitely completes my mental picture of you. I especially like the line about hoping I get killed in a terrorist attack.
The legislature isn’t MANDATING the use of the vaginal probe. The choice to use a vaginal or abdominal transducer would be a medical decision, most likely based on how far advanced the pregnancy is.
The legislature is mandating that it must be used if it would yield a clearer picture, even if there’s no medical reason to do it. Even if the abdominal ultrasound gave the doctor all the information needed. Even if the doctor doesn’t want to do it. And because most abortions are done in early pregnancy, this law would affect most women seeking an abortion in Oklahoma.
This is still a patients’ rights issue.
Sorry for the duplicate content comments, thought the first one got lost.
Jeepers, if the ultrasound has to be done anyway, to know where the baby is, so you can get it all out properly for the abortion, why not let the woman see the picture that’s being done anyway? They have no problem with a vaginal scanner when the woman is prevented from seeing it before the abortion. If she is allowed to see it before the abortion, then it becomes rape. It’s not putting something inside her that’s rape, (this is part of the abortion process anyway), it’s allowing her to see something that might encourage her to choose life. This is what gets called rape.
I can’t believe how hypoctical modern mainstream feminists are. It just boogles the mind.
They have no problem with a vaginal scanner when the woman is prevented from seeing it before the abortion. If she is allowed to see it before the abortion, then it becomes rape.
I’m not sure which “They” you’re paraphrasing or referring to here, but in all that I have read and in my conversations with people who oppose this law, the opposition has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not women are shown the ultrasound.
The relevant text of the bill:
Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly;
The problem is that the legislature is taking a medical decision out of the hands of doctors and patients. Further, they are mandating that even if an abdominal ultrasound gives the doctor all the information needed to proceed with the abortion, the doctor must use a vaginal transducer if it would “display the embryo or fetus more clearly.” In early pregnancy, when most abortions are done, it seems to me that the vaginal transducer would always “display the embryo or fetus more clearly.” Thus a vaginal ultrasound is required (forced upon patients) by law in a majority of cases. Even if there is no medical reason to use a vaginal transducer.
I firmly believe that the choice to have an abortion needs to be a decision made confidently and never under duress or pressure from anyone. If looking at an ultrasound of the embryo or fetus changes a woman’s mind, it’s clear that she doesn’t want the abortion. Women should have every opportunity to change their minds. I’ve heard several stories from women who changed their minds just before the procedure started but were prevented from leaving. That is NEVER acceptable. NEVER.
The characterization that people who are pro-choice will do everything to make sure women don’t change their minds is totally incorrect. The term is pro-CHOICE — and when women are pushed or forced to go through with an abortion that they don’t want, there is no choice involved.
Being pro-choice is not limited to abortion rights. It’s about preserving the choice for women — making sure that women have access to all the options and fighting to keep that access available. I will fight just as hard as I fight for abortion rights to ensure that women can change their minds, even when they’re lying on the table and the procedure is seconds away. No one should ever be forced or pressured into having an abortion they don’t want. Ever.
The problem is that the legislature is taking a medical decision out of the hands of doctors and patients. Posted by: Violet at May 6, 2010 2:31 PM
That didn’t seem to concern you in your pro-Obamacare comments on earlier threads. Could it be that you aren’t so concerned about patient rights but about the content of the law itself?
People who sincerely support patients rights to choose treatments, physician freedom to recommend plan of care, and freedom from government intrusion into medical decision-making aren’t typically Obamacare supporters. It’s hard to take you seriously if you object to a State mandating a protocol for care but support the feds doing the same thing in nearly all aspects of health care.
That didn’t seem to concern you in your pro-Obamacare comments on earlier threads. Could it be that you aren’t so concerned about patient rights but about the content of the law itself?
I have serious concerns about the way health reform puts more and more decisions about health care in the hands of insurance companies. The bill that was passed is far from perfect. I supported it because some of what it contains is a step in the right direction, particularly the provisions that force insurance companies to stop denying coverage for those who need it most.
What has consistently mystified me in the discussions I’ve had with people who opposed the bill is that there seems to be a great deal of fear of the government getting involved in health care, particularly when it comes to decisions about individual care — but very little awareness that the current system puts all of that power, and more, in the hands of profit-driven insurance companies.
People who sincerely support patients rights to choose treatments, physician freedom to recommend plan of care, and freedom from government intrusion into medical decision-making aren’t typically Obamacare supporters.
Right now, each of the items you list are almost totally in the hands of insurance companies, particularly HMOs. Doctors who accept insurance have those decisions taken out of their hands on a daily basis. There are some important parts of the health reform bill that attempt to rectify that somewhat by forcing insurers to provide certain types of care, and forcing them to cover everyone without regard to pre-existing conditions.
I didn’t support health reform because I agreed with every word and every provision. I support some of what is in the bill, and I wanted it passed because some of what it contained is critically needed.
As a patient I have seen just how much insurance companies can take away the right of patients and doctors to find and choose the best treatments, or to decide treatment plans. I’ve had many recommendations denied by insurance while being treated for stage 3 melanoma and severe nerve damage and chronic pain. I’ve had prescriptions denied because the insurance company required that I try three other medications for four weeks each before they would cover them. While I finally have health insurance starting May 1 — thanks to health reform, which allowed the California High Risk Pool to accept more patients — it’s the worst major medical coverage I’ve ever had. I’ve only had it for a few days, but they are already denying coverage for a surgical treatment that my doctors believe is the only way I will ever live without pain.
I don’t want insurance companies or the government taking medical decisions from patients and doctors, but given a choice between the two, I’d rather have the government involved than continue to allow profit-driven insurers to make the calls. The health reform bill should improve the situation somewhat by placing limitations on what insurers have to provide and who they must accept. I don’t like the fact that insurance companies are still in control, and have a little hope that it is possible to pass a public option bill down the road (but I’m not holding my breath).
Right now, each of the items you list are almost totally in the hands of insurance companies, particularly HMOs.
Not true. Insurance companies cannot deny treatment, only PAYMENT for treatment. Every day, many health care professionals continue to provide care and treatment for which they do not receive a dime of reimbursement. I’m off to work now, where all of my patients will receive care regardless of ability to pay or coverage for what they need.
I’ve had prescriptions denied because the insurance company required that I try three other medications for four weeks each before they would cover them.
Obamacare is like HMOs on steroids, Violet. It is designed for more, not less, of what you describe. Have a pleasant evening.
Violet: Although I’m pro-life and you’re pro-choice, we definitely agree on the issue of forced abortion, coercion, and manipulation to get a woman to abort when she really doesn’t want to. We are both against the practice of forcing, coercing, or severely penalizing a woman to push her into an unwanted abortion.