Is it okay to force a woman to have an ultrasound

[Linda_Marie]

1. Birthing a child usually requires a penetrative act. Would it be okay to, force a woman to have a non-necessary penetrative ultrasound before having baby.

There’s a whole host of OB/GYN procedures that are very invasive to which you must subject yourself if you want the care. She would be given a full pelvic as part of the initial exam to determine if she is pregnant.

Abortifacients are powerful drugs, very strong artificial hormones. They can have serious side effects. To think that a doctor would give his patient abortifacient drugs without determining if she is actually pregnant…

Of course, imho, any doctor dishing out abortifacient drugs (here, have an extra large dose of a class one carcinogen) has no respect for life and thinks as little of the woman he gives them to as he does the baby.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

1. Abortions can be chemical. No penetrative procedure required.
2. The legislature rejected an amendment to allow doctors to perform a non-penetrative ultrasound.
3. The ultrasound is required even if the doctor does not think it is necessary.
4. The right to abortion is a recognized right. See Roe v. Wade.
5. Birthing a child usually requires a penetrative act. Would it be okay to, force a woman to have a non-necessary penetrative ultrasound before having baby.

What “penetrative act” does birthing a child require? CREATING a child does require a penetrative act, which would be sexual intimacy between a husband and wife, but giving birth to a baby does not normally involve any penetrative act. The baby comes OUT, nothing goes IN.

You are strange.

 

[katy]

This is a strawman argument. An ultrasound examination is already done before an abortion, always. The abortionist doesn’t go in blind.

The ultrasound is required to locate the fetus. They need to know where the baby is so it can be chopped into parts and removed or sucked out with a vacuum.

What is different is allowing the mother to see the ultrasound rather than ‘protecting’ her from seeing her baby before she has him/her killed since that would cause trauma. They would see that their baby is not just a blob of cells like they’ve been told and know that they are killing a human being.

This argument about penetration is a diversion. The abortion procedure itself is extremely invasive in this regard. The ultrasound is the least of it.

Exactly. The abortion is much more invasive than an ultrasound and can give women real information about what is to happen.

 

[Allegra]

And she can choose C - leave the state and obtain an abortion without the ultrasound and all of the above chaos.

I’d like to know how a woman has an abortion without being penetrated? Do they pull the baby out her nose?

 

[Allegra]

1. Abortions can be chemical. No penetrative procedure required.
2. The legislature rejected an amendment to allow doctors to perform a non-penetrative ultrasound.
3. The ultrasound is required even if the doctor does not think it is necessary.
4. The right to abortion is a recognized right. See Roe v. Wade.
5. Birthing a child usually requires a penetrative act. Would it be okay to, force a woman to have a non-necessary penetrative ultrasound before having baby.

Even chemical abortions can require a penetrative procedure. Very often the woman needs a DC, just like after a miscarriage. Also, most women have multiple preventative ultrasounds at various stages before having a baby.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The “doctor” performing the abortion normally needs to date the pregnancy, to ascertain how large the child is and what type of procedure to use.

That is done by sonogram.

The real problem that makes opponents of the law upset is that now mothers will see their children.

My DD was 8 weeks gestation when I had my dating sono, which means she was 6 weeks after conception.

She had a head, body, eyes, arm buds visible and a rapidly beating little heart.

Is it ok to kill babies this size and development and call it a choice?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Even chemical abortions can require a penetrative procedure. Very often the woman needs a DC, just like after a miscarriage. Also, most women have multiple preventative ultrasounds at various stages before having a baby.

Chemical abortions need to happen before 9 weeks. In order to make sure the baby is younger than 9 weeks, they must perform a sono.

 

[Brendan]

This is a strawman argument. An ultrasound examination is already done before an abortion, always. The abortionist doesn’t go in blind.

Exactly, the vaginal ultrasound is already required as part of the procedure per medical standards. The abortionist has to note the position of the child before the abortist can pull it apart while it is still alive.

What is required is that the women be shown the images that the abortionists have been hiding from her.

 

[triumphguy]

1. Abortions can be chemical. No penetrative procedure required. So how do they gt the chemical in there? Hypnosis? B TW, by chemical I presume you mean poison, or other death dealing substance?
   …

Difference = choice

So if you choose to have an abortion in the states that require an ultrasound, then you are also choosing to have an untrasound as required. True?

 

[hazmat]

op: i wouldnt allow someone to penetrate me without my wanting to be penetrated. so, no. if we are talking about me, the answer is no. under no circumstances would that be ok with me.

 

[TraderTif]

She’s choosing to get an abortion, the ultrasound is part of the package. (Should we be upset that she is “forced” to have a doctor perform the abortion procedure? That she is “forced” to have the procedure done in a clinic?)

I had pelvic surgery a couple years back, and I was “forced” to get one of those ultrasounds immediately before, despite the fact that I didn’t want it. It was part of the package, and I couldn’t get the surgery without it. (Doctors don’t like to go in there blind.)

It’s an extremely common medical procedure and I think comparing it to rape is over-the-top.

 

[DeoSalvatoreMeo]

As has already been stated, abortionists use transvaginal ultrasounds to confirm a pregnancy and assess how far into the pregnancy the woman is. The only difference is the direction in which the monitor will be pointed.

You can read about transvaginal ultrasound from this “Provider’s Guide to Medical Abortion” here:

prochoice.org/education/cme/online_cme/m4ultrasound.asp#3

Jill Stanek’s responded to the “controversy” on her website:

"Furthermore, do abortion proponents really want to “go there” on the topic of vaginal intrusion and rape?

If anything, it is an abortion that is comparable to rape. Abortion is an act of violence, both against the baby and her mother. Abortion is painful, bloody, and involves sharp instruments, certainly much more comparable to forcible rape than an innocuous ultrasound probe"

The full response is here: jillstanek.com/2012/02/abortion-proponents-equate-vaginal-ultrasound-not-abortion-with-rape/

 

[Dan_McVay]

If anything, it is an abortion that is comparable to rape. Abortion is an act of violence, both against the baby and her mother. Abortion is painful, bloody, and involves sharp instruments, certainly much more comparable to forcible rape than an innocuous ultrasound probe"

The full response is here: jillstanek.com/2012/02/abortion-proponents-equate-vaginal-ultrasound-not-abortion-with-rape/

Except a woman chooses and consents to an abortion. The new legislation would force a procedure even if the doctor finds it is unnecessary and the woman does not want it.

Where are all the Catholics who have been arguing for freedom in medical care?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Except a woman chooses and consents to an abortion. The new legislation would force a procedure even if the doctor finds it is unnecessary and the woman does not want it.

Where are all the Catholics who have been arguing for freedom in medical care?

A “doctor” who performs an abortion without conducting an ultrasound would legally be committing malpractice.
All that rhetoric about abortion being “safe” —the “doctor” would know what procedure to use just blindly?

Basically you are arguing for a less “safe” procedure so the woman can blindly “choose”.

It isn’t even a prohibition of abortion.

If abortion were really just a benign procedure, why worry about what the women see?

 

[St_Francis]

Except a woman chooses and consents to an abortion. The new legislation would force a procedure even if the doctor finds it is unnecessary and the woman does not want it.

Where are all the Catholics who have been arguing for freedom in medical care?

You have not yet pointed out where a transvaginal ultrasound would be required. Few of the ultrasounds would actually have to be transvaginal; most would be transabdominal.

 

[Corki]

Except a woman chooses and consents to an abortion. The new legislation would force a procedure even if the doctor finds it is unnecessary and the woman does not want it.

This is not at all unusual in medical care. There are hundreds of additional steps that are taken before and after medical procedures that a given doctor might think are superfluous but they are required by the government, the insurance provider or the medical facility itself. Why the objection to this one?

Seeing the ultrasound is simply an attempt to ensure informed consent. Many patients for medical care and surgery, don’t want to hear about all the possible side-effects or risks. That doesn’t change the fact that they are required to be informed.

For decades, abortion providers have fought all attempts to provide basic information to their clients and to ensure that abortions are conducted with informed consent. They want abortion to be seen as a normal medical procedure but they have been unwilling to implement basic “normal” standards of safety and consent. Now, they are seeing the consequences of that pro-abortion agenda.

Where are all the Catholics who have been arguing for freedom in medical care?

Catholics are arguing for freedom to use religious conscience in providing health care.

Are you saying that these “doctors” have a religious objection to ultrasounds?

 

[maryjk]

Except a woman chooses and consents to an abortion. The new legislation would force a procedure even if the doctor finds it is unnecessary and the woman does not want it.

Where are all the Catholics who have been arguing for freedom in medical care?

And when she chooses and consents to an abortion, she receives a pelvic exam. Having just had a transvaginal ultrasound, I can tell you that the pelvic exam was much more invasive; much more intrusive.

Catholics are arguing for freedom of conscience in medical care. Whose conscience is being tramped?

 

[Linda_Marie]

Chemical Abortions

Methotrexate has been available for almost 50 years as a treatment for tumors, arthritis, and psoriasis. It is given by injection. Normal side effects are described as “usually mild” and not of long duration; they can include: nausea, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, hot flashes, or sores in the mouth. The medication stops the development of the embryo.

Misoprostol is a commonly used prostaglandin medication for ulcers. It is inserted into the vagina, often by the woman at home, 5 to 7 days after the injection of methotrexate. A number of side-effects are possible, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, dizziness, and/or fever and chills.
<…>
One complication of this procedure is that it is only about 95% reliable; the embryo is sometimes not expelled, but continues to grow. Because of the nature of the medication used, it will be almost certainly seriously deformed. Before proceeding with a medical abortion,the woman should be willing to follow up with a surgical abortion if the chemical technique fails.
<…>
Disadvantages include:

• At least two visits to a physician are required (vs. one for an abortion by vacuum aspiration)

• The medication is only about 95% effective.

• The duration of the procedure and its related bleeding are greater.

• The woman may be distressed at seeing the expelled embryo.

This site also reckons that the baby at 2 weeks is just ‘a small piece of undifferentiated tissue’. If the baby is just a small piece of undifferentiated tissue, how will the mother recognise the embryo to be distressed at seeing his/her dead body. Abortionists argue that whatever you do, don’t let her see what she is killing.

From the bill:
Summary:

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

SENATE BILL NO. 484

1. A statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed and that fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed prior to the abortion to confirm the gestational age; and

Where does it specify transvaginal ultrasound?

A woman should know exactly to what she is consenting before she has her child killed, whether by chemicals or surgery.

This whole argument is a beat up.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

Except a woman chooses and consents to an abortion. The new legislation would force a procedure even if the doctor finds it is unnecessary and the woman does not want it.

Where are all the Catholics who have been arguing for freedom in medical care?

Dan, I’m pro-life, and I agree with you: I don’t think state legislatures have much business telling doctors which tests or procedures are necessary. Legislators usually are unable to brainstorm scenarios where you don’t want the doctor to be doing X, even though you have mandated her to do so.

Laws regarding informed consent are already well-developed over the past 50 years. I don’t think this legislation does much other than make some legislators get re-elected. They aren’t stopping any abortions, and I’m guessing they aren’t radically increasing the number of sonographic tests that will be performed. I mean… before performing an abortion, how else are these doctors confirming that the woman is actually pregnant? Maybe I’m woefully uninformed, but I think the cheapest, easiest, quickest way is a sonogram. So I’m assuming they are doing them all the time before handing out an abortion pill.

 

[Nate13]

Dan, I’m pro-life, and I agree with you: I don’t think state legislatures have much business telling doctors which tests or procedures are necessary. Legislators usually are unable to brainstorm scenarios where you don’t want the doctor to be doing X, even though you have mandated her to do so.

Laws regarding informed consent are already well-developed over the past 50 years. I don’t think this legislation does much other than make some legislators get re-elected. They aren’t stopping any abortions, and I’m guessing they aren’t radically increasing the number of sonographic tests that will be performed. I mean… before performing an abortion, how else are these doctors confirming that the woman is actually pregnant? Maybe I’m woefully uninformed, but I think the cheapest, easiest, quickest way is a sonogram. So I’m assuming they are doing them all the time before handing out an abortion pill.

Do you not believe a woman seeing her baby has a great effect? Its of course possible that most women will reject the option to see their baby even though it is offered, but its important to make sure women at least have a chance to receive the information. This is about protecting women from abortion centers and the biased influence they have over the decision process.