Abortion Supporters State Ultrasounds Would Cost $700. Then Why Are Crisis Pregnancy Centers Doing Them for FREE?

[deb1]

I’m just saying that if the intent of requesting mandatory ultrasounds is to facilitate full disclosure, I’m all for it.

The question of whether an ultrasound is necessary to safeguard physical health is a medical decision to be made by those so qualified.

If I am not mistaken, haskilee is studying to be a doctor. So, she seems pretty qualified to me.

I am pretty certain that the original lawmakers didn’t bring up any safety issues when putting forth this bill.

It is those of on Catholic Answers who have suffered through a miscarriage or have a medical background who are shocked that the abortion clinics don’t have a piece of equipment that could help save women’s lives.

 

[love4mary]

We have a Crisis Pregnancy center in my town and they advertise FREE ultra sounds for all moms.

I begged my daughter to have an U/S when she told me she was pregnant, but she refused saying it would just “complicate” the situation.

Even IF it cost $700.00, who cares, if the life of a baby is saved. But other then porn , the abortion industry is one of the highest profiting agencies in the country.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My daughter used to email us her ultrasounds, including one showing our granddaughter, Cassandra, sucking her thumb at 13 weeks.

 

[seekerz]

If I am not mistaken, haskilee is studying to be a doctor. So, she seems pretty qualified to me.

I am pretty certain that the original lawmakers didn’t bring up any safety issues when putting forth this bill.

It is those of on Catholic Answers who have suffered through a miscarriage or have a medical background who are shocked that the abortion clinics don’t have a piece of equipment that could help save women’s lives.

Why the insistence on justifying opinions that are not necessary to be proven here? Studying to be a doctor is not the same as being one. If I’m not mistaken, the relevant training is qualifed OB/Gyn…

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that any competent doctor would do any procedure today in our legal climate without taking all necessary safety precautions. Even if individuals may be inclined to cut corners, there are standards set by professional bodies and medical institutions which they are required to follow.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why the insistence on justifying opinions that are not necessary to be proven here? Studying to be a doctor is not the same as being one. If I’m not mistaken, the relevant training is qualifed OB/Gyn…

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that any competent doctor would do any procedure today in our legal climate without taking all necessary safety precautions. Even if individuals may be inclined to cut corners, there are standards set by professional bodies and medical institutions which they are required to follow.

But abortion clinics are special, and don’t have to play by the rules other clinics must follow. The New Jersey Supreme Court just recently ruled that “informed consent” doesn’t apply to them in a case where a woman was told her child was “just a blob of tissue,” and later found that was not true and was overcome with remorse.

To the issue of the thread, ultrasounds would cost nothing – if abortion clinics would allow it, Arkansas Right to Life would donate the machine to each abortion mill in the state, and** pay** a technician to operate it.

 

[seekerz]

But abortion clinics are special, and don’t have to play by the rules other clinics must follow. The New Jersey Supreme Court just recently ruled that “informed consent” doesn’t apply to them in a case where a woman was told her child was “just a blob of tissue,” and later found that was not true and was overcome with remorse.

To the issue of the thread, ultrasounds would cost nothing – if abortion clinics would allow it, Arkansas Right to Life would donate the machine to each abortion mill in the state, and** pay** a technician to operate it.

That’s great and I’m all for it. I just think that implying that not doing an ultrasound for reasons of physical health, is somehow unsafe medical practice causes us to lose credibility in our arguments if we are not medically qualified to make that call.

I don’t see why that distinction seems so hard for some to accept. Whether the ultrasound is free or not doesn’t mean that the doctor is putting my life at risk by not doing one.

The issue of informed consent is separate from the safe medical care issue. Maybe there are women who will be convinced to not abort by seeing their babies; there are definitely some who won’t care either way but I agree that all should be given the opportunity of an ultrasound at the time of consent.

It seems to me that unless the law mandates an ultrasound as a part of informed consent, doctors are not erring legally (certainly morally they are) by choosing not to do it. Even early ultrasounds in desired pregnancies are not mandatory in the absence of complications, though they are common practice. Also, even if the ultrasound before abortion is made mandatory on the part of the doctor are the courts going to deny abortion to the women who decline? Just a thought…

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s great and I’m all for it. I just think that implying that not doing an ultrasound for reasons of physical health, is somehow unsafe medical practice causes us to lose credibility in our arguments if we are not medically qualified to make that call.

I don’t see why that distinction seems so hard for some to accept. Whether the ultrasound is free or not doesn’t mean that the doctor is putting my life at risk by not doing one.

No, but he could be putting your mental health at risk by not fully informing you of the reality of your pregnancy.

Let’s face it, most abortionists are not so much health providers as advocates.

 

[seekerz]

No, but he could be putting your mental health at risk by not fully informing you of the reality of your pregnancy.

That’s a given. Many are the women who never recover from an abortion, either because of the unresolved remorse they suffer or because of their loss of the ability to feel remorse.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s a given. Many are the women who never recover from an abortion, either because of the unresolved remorse they suffer or because of their loss of the ability to feel remorse.

Which is why a woman should be fully informed. An abortion can not only damage her mental health, but can affect any children she may have later.

I strongly recommend that people who want to discuss abortion see the National Geographic DVD In the Womb. It was not created for political purposes, and even uses the phrase “parasite” to describe the unborn child. But you will not come away from seeing it thinking the child is not fully human from conception.

 

[seekerz]

Which is why a woman should be fully informed. An abortion can not only damage her mental health, but can affect any children she may have later.

I strongly recommend that people who want to discuss abortion see the National Geographic DVD In the Womb. It was not created for political purposes, and even uses the phrase “parasite” to describe the unborn child. But you will not come away from seeing it thinking the child is not fully human from conception.

It just seems like much of the young college-age crowd is way past the “is it a baby or a blob of tissue” debate. Typical of the prevailing self-centeredness of many of that generation, the attitude seems to be: “I don’t care if it has ten fingers and toes or sucks it’s thumb; my body - my choice”.

Some of the comments on pro-choice boards reflect a shocking callousness, complete with detailed scientific information on every stage of development. They know just what a baby looks like and what organs it has at every stage; they just don’t seem to care. How does one get through that kind to hard hardheartedness to find the milk of human kindness far less a spark of motherly instinct?

Sometimes the task seems truly daunting but for the grace of God…

 

[vern_humphrey]

It just seems like much of the young college-age crowd is way past the “is it a baby or a blob of tissue” debate. Typical of the prevailing self-centeredness of many of that generation, the attitude seems to be: “I don’t care if it has ten fingers and toes or sucks it’s thumb; my body - my choice”.

Some of the comments on pro-choice boards reflect a shocking callousness, complete with detailed scientific information on every stage of development. They know just what a baby looks like and what organs it has at every stage; they just don’t seem to care. How does one get through that kind to hard hardheartedness to find the milk of human kindness far less a spark of motherly instinct?

Sometimes the task seems truly daunting but for the grace of God…

I have said before that abortionists partake of a serial killer mentality:

• They believe they have a right to do what they do.
• They do not empathize with their victims.
• They rationalize their acts.
• They follow a ritual.
• They feel no remorse.

 

[hasikelee]

It just seems like much of the young college-age crowd is way past the “is it a baby or a blob of tissue” debate. Typical of the prevailing self-centeredness of many of that generation, the attitude seems to be: “I don’t care if it has ten fingers and toes or sucks it’s thumb; my body - my choice”.

Some of the comments on pro-choice boards reflect a shocking callousness, complete with detailed scientific information on every stage of development. They know just what a baby looks like and what organs it has at every stage; they just don’t seem to care. How does one get through that kind to hard hardheartedness to find the milk of human kindness far less a spark of motherly instinct?

Sometimes the task seems truly daunting but for the grace of God…

I totally agree with seekerz. Remember the scandal of the partial birth abortion ban…it brought them out of the woodwork so to say.

Although many people mouth “prochoice” without really knowing what it means and those people balked at the procedure, many more people stood their ground and supported this procedure.

I definitely met my share of people who had no qualms about standing up for this abortion method and had no excuses or insecurity. They were pro-abortion in every way and proud of it.

There’s a poster on several threads right now that speaks pretty clearly about abortive procedures and is not insecure about promoting his/her belief.

 

[hasikelee]

Why the insistence on justifying opinions that are not necessary to be proven here? Studying to be a doctor is not the same as being one. If I’m not mistaken, the relevant training is qualifed OB/Gyn…

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that any competent doctor would do any procedure today in our legal climate without taking all necessary safety precautions. Even if individuals may be inclined to cut corners, there are standards set by professional bodies and medical institutions which they are required to follow.

My opinion is that all invasive surgeries surrounding pregnancy should be monitored by an ultrasound.

In my post, I did not give an opinion, but rather my perception of the way things are based on a hodgesmodge of info.

I disagree that someone studying in a particular field has the same authority as someone already practicing in that field.

Anyways, I wanted to test my perception that ultrasound was a commonly used monitoring method during D&Cs for non-abortive purposes (such as in the case of miscarriages). From what I found, it appears not only to be the case, but to be the unquestioned case.

I browsed through some journals and some ob-gyn sites, finding every instance of “D&C” followed by “monitored by ultrasound”. I found it most commonly referred to as “Ultrasound guided cutterage.” So I do feel that my earlier post stands.

Therefore, as it seems rather common sense and as it seems to be a rather common procedure in the medical community at large, it is telling that abortion clinics are not routinely using ultrasounds to guide them during their procedure. Seeing as how it is not a spontaneous abortion, but rather a procured abortion, it would seem even more necessary to use an ultrasound. Also, as the gestational age of the child increases and the child reaches viability, the need for ultrasound monitoring would seemingly increase as well unless a very large dose of anesthesia was being used.

 

[seekerz]

My opinion is that all invasive surgeries surrounding pregnancy should be monitored by an ultrasound.

In my post, I did not give an opinion, but rather my perception of the way things are based on a hodgesmodge of info.

I disagree that someone studying in a particular field has the same authority as someone already practicing in that field.

Anyways, I wanted to test my perception that ultrasound was a commonly used monitoring method during D&Cs for non-abortive purposes (such as in the case of miscarriages). From what I found, it appears not only to be the case, but to be the unquestioned case.

I browsed through some journals and some ob-gyn sites, finding every instance of “D&C” followed by “monitored by ultrasound”. I found it most commonly referred to as “Ultrasound guided cutterage.” So I do feel that my earlier post stands.

Therefore, as it seems rather common sense and as it seems to be a rather common procedure in the medical community at large, it is telling that abortion clinics are not routinely using ultrasounds to guide them during their procedure. Seeing as how it is not a spontaneous abortion, but rather a procured abortion, it would seem even more necessary to use an ultrasound. Also, as the gestational age of the child increases and the child reaches viability, the need for ultrasound monitoring would seemingly increase as well unless a very large dose of anesthesia was being used.

I still believe we are confusing apples and oranges. Vern is talking about ultrasound BEFORE abortions for the purpose of informed consent.

Complications of early pregnancy (first trimester) would normally be monitored by ultrasound, but not necessarily a normal, problem free pregnancy. In the case of an abortion, the use of ultrasound for medical reasons depends on the doctor’s perception of whether it is or is not necessary in a particular case.

Other comments regarding safety seem to be referring to the use of ultrasound AFTER the procedure to make sure it is complete. This second purpose is not always necessary with early miscarriage or abortion though it is generally needed for mid-pregnancy. You can check this information with a qualified doc. I know enough women who have endured loss to feel this is fairly accurate.

 

[hasikelee]

I still believe we are confusing apples and oranges. Vern is talking about ultrasound BEFORE abortions for the purpose of informed consent.

Complications of early pregnancy (first trimester) would normally be monitored by ultrasound, but not necessarily a normal, problem free pregnancy. In the case of an abortion, the use of ultrasound for medical reasons depends on the doctor’s perception of whether it is or is not necessary in a particular case.

Other comments regarding safety seem to be referring to the use of ultrasound AFTER the procedure to make sure it is complete. This second purpose is not always necessary with early miscarriage or abortion though it is generally needed for mid-pregnancy. You can check this information with a qualified doc. I know enough women who have endured loss to feel this is fairly accurate.

Yes, I too know of women who have experienced a spontaneous abortion and did not receive ultrasound monitoring.

I was not using anectdotal experience as the foundation of my post, but rather pointing out that it seems commonplace in the medical community to monitor a D&C with an ultrasound. Abortion clinics do not routinely practice this.

The majority of abortions in America are performed between 8 and 12 weeks and a D&C is the most common method used for these abortions.

Vern’s argument is of a different line. I argue that if the medical community routinely practices a D&C under the monitoring of an ultrasound, abortion clinics should do this as well.

To what extent and at what gestational age is enough of a question for an entire different thread.

Ultrasounds before the abortive procedure seem to be as obviously needed as during the procedure. This would be a pretty basic concept to determine the number of developing humans in the uterus, the location of them, the gestational age of the humans and the health of the mother and the child.

Ultrasounds would help reduce those cases that give bad media attention to abortions, such as when the abortionist performs an abortion, but misses the twin, or when the abortionist tears the uterus and damages the intestines of the woman.

 

[kettle]

The abortion supporters are full of bunk. The ultrasound performed prior to an abortion is not a diagnostic ultrasound, and there is virtually no cost involved in turning on the machine - certainly not $700. Instead, the u/s is simply performed to determine the placement of the baby inside the mother’s womb and to determine the number of babies present. When the abortionist performs this ultrasound and the mother asks to see the screen, the abortionist says, “No,” and that it is “against their policy” to show her.

There is only one reason, and one reason only, why an abortionist would not show a mother an ultrasound image of the baby whose life she is about to end, and we all know what that reason is… because MOST women would get up and walk out. They can’t make money if the women walk out carrying their babies in their wombs.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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?

jillstanek.com/archives/2008/04/show_me_the_mon.html#comments

A couple of quick trans-abdominal pictures would cost $20-50 total (equipment, supplies, mantainance, operator). You can buy used working equipment in good condition with the necessary accessories from a few hundred to a few thousand.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A couple of quick trans-abdominal pictures would cost $20-50 total (equipment, supplies, mantainance, operator). You can buy used working equipment in good condition with the necessary accessories from a few hundred to a few thousand.

And Right to Life is perfectly willing to buy those machines and pay the technicians to operate them – if only they are allowed to show the mother the pictures.

 

[Brenda_V]

But are we sure that all women who have abortions need such ultrasounds? I know people who have had early miscarriages who had no ultrasounds after the pregnancy was removed. If we are going to say that failing to do ultrasounds in every case is failing to give proper medical care, we need to have a scientific basis for that opinion.

It is my understanding that the reason an ultra sound needs to be done for the health of the mother is to determine how far along the pregnancy is because that would determine which kind of abortion to do - if the baby is further along than they think using ‘estimated first day of last menstrual period’ it can be pretty tricky because for some who really don’t keep track of their cycles it can be as much as a month off!

 

[seekerz]

It is my understanding that the reason an ultra sound needs to be done for the health of the mother is to determine how far along the pregnancy is because that would determine which kind of abortion to do - if the baby is further along than they think using ‘estimated first day of last menstrual period’ it can be pretty tricky because for some who really don’t keep track of their cycles it can be as much as a month off!

Again, you are referring to ultrasounds before the procedure and I’m referring to after…Which is why I think the medical aspect of ultrasound use should be left out of the present discussion because it confuses the issue. If we make statements that may not be medically correct in all cases, we just seem like a bunch of people who have no clue what we’re talking about. Which is exactly the way some professionals would like to portray pro-lifers.